|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 12, 2009 14:23:26 GMT
Boxer is the dumbest person now serving in the Senate (and she has a great deal of competition for that distinction). She is the perfect personification of the fear of the and hype of AGW- gullible, uninformed, and reactionary. This nasty, hypocritical tax bill pretends to be about climate. It is not. It is about raising taxes and giving money to insiders. Stopping this bill is a truly important effort for anyone who actually cares about the environment and the well being of people. The bill that Sen Boxer is promoting is far from certain. No matter the compromise, some people can't be bought. |
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jul 15, 2009 11:25:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jul 16, 2009 11:39:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 16, 2009 12:39:49 GMT
The skeptics of AGW are playing a selective smear game similar to the ones creationists play towards evolution.
There's no honest and objective appraisal of the science, just a kind of quick grab for any thread they can pull to smear the scientists as frauds and dismiss inconvenient science.
For example when GISTEMP adjustments in the past have been slightly upward, this is something skeptics know they can exploit to claim it is a fraud with the objective to both smear Hansen and as part of their wider campaign to throw the surface record into doubt.
But what do skeptics say about all the UAH satellite record adjustments which have been upwards and significantly greater than GISTEMP? Do they generate a similar smear campaign out of that?
Of course not, because that wouldn't fulfill their agenda. It has nothing to do with science, it's all about finding fresh and new ways to deny the science.
It's why for example skeptics get so confused when it's pointed out that the satellite and surface records since 1979 show a similar amount of warming. They are conditioned and led by their masters to believe last 30 years of warming is exagerated in the surface records, and also conditioned to claim the satellite record is okay. So many of them don't even realize the two largely agree and when faced by that they kind of get a bit lost in dealing with it and fall back to something Hansen did.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 17, 2009 1:53:26 GMT
The skeptics of AGW are playing a selective smear game similar to the ones creationists play towards evolution. There's no honest and objective appraisal of the science, just a kind of quick grab for any thread they can pull to smear the scientists as frauds and dismiss inconvenient science. For example when GISTEMP adjustments in the past have been slightly upward, this is something skeptics know they can exploit to claim it is a fraud with the objective to both smear Hansen and as part of their wider campaign to throw the surface record into doubt. But what do skeptics say about all the UAH satellite record adjustments which have been upwards and significantly greater than GISTEMP? Do they generate a similar smear campaign out of that? Of course not, because that wouldn't fulfill their agenda. It has nothing to do with science, it's all about finding fresh and new ways to deny the science. It's why for example skeptics get so confused when it's pointed out that the satellite and surface records since 1979 show a similar amount of warming. They are conditioned and led by their masters to believe last 30 years of warming is exagerated in the surface records, and also conditioned to claim the satellite record is okay. So many of them don't even realize the two largely agree and when faced by that they kind of get a bit lost in dealing with it and fall back to something Hansen did. You are the one grasping at distant straws socold. You miss the completely obvious answer. Namely that Hansen has discredited himself as a neutral scientist. It is so obvious when you seen him in court trying to justify the violent acts of ecoterrorists, and when you see him breaking the law to protest a coal plant. Its not that he is wrong to do those things, its a matter of he should not do those things and hold a job where neutrality is expected. The fact is arguments of personal rights to have a job and protest simply does not hold water when you reach certain levels of responsibility. Presidents of major corporations are held to higher standards than the janitor of the same company. Hansen is obviously an accomplished scientist but he should be working for an organization that values his points of view, like NRDC or an organization like that. That in a nutshell is the answer there. Hansen uniquely catches that because of his responsibilities. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 17, 2009 1:54:35 GMT
The skeptics of AGW are playing a selective smear game similar to the ones creationists play towards evolution. There's no honest and objective appraisal of the science, just a kind of quick grab for any thread they can pull to smear the scientists as frauds and dismiss inconvenient science. For example when GISTEMP adjustments in the past have been slightly upward, this is something skeptics know they can exploit to claim it is a fraud with the objective to both smear Hansen and as part of their wider campaign to throw the surface record into doubt. But what do skeptics say about all the UAH satellite record adjustments which have been upwards and significantly greater than GISTEMP? Do they generate a similar smear campaign out of that? Of course not, because that wouldn't fulfill their agenda. It has nothing to do with science, it's all about finding fresh and new ways to deny the science. It's why for example skeptics get so confused when it's pointed out that the satellite and surface records since 1979 show a similar amount of warming. They are conditioned and led by their masters to believe last 30 years of warming is exagerated in the surface records, and also conditioned to claim the satellite record is okay. So many of them don't even realize the two largely agree and when faced by that they kind of get a bit lost in dealing with it and fall back to something Hansen did. But what do skeptics say about all the UAH satellite record adjustments which have been upwards and significantly greater than GISTEMP? Do they generate a similar smear campaign out of that? There's nothing wrong with adjusting data as long as it is justified qualitatively. UAH adjustments are well documented, the system is under constant calibration and maintained. The surface station network is withering on the vine and has serious issues, hundreds of them literally. The network has been in disarray for decades, never maintained, dwindling in numbers and there are no plans to improve it. That you refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence documenting these problems only paints yourself in a corner. Hansen says completely ridiculous things; he should have been fired years ago for using tax payer dollars on company time to promote his own political agenda and violating policy. Roy Spencer left NASA because he honored and followed the rules prohibiting the type of behavior Hansen engages in. Are you sure you want to defend the surface station network again after getting bloodied so badly in the past? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 17, 2009 2:02:59 GMT
You are the one grasping at distant straws socold. You miss the completely obvious answer. Namely that Hansen has discredited himself as a neutral scientist. No scientists in this issue are neutral. They all have an opinion on it. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 17, 2009 2:10:09 GMT
The skeptics of AGW are playing a selective smear game similar to the ones creationists play towards evolution. There's no honest and objective appraisal of the science, just a kind of quick grab for any thread they can pull to smear the scientists as frauds and dismiss inconvenient science. For example when GISTEMP adjustments in the past have been slightly upward, this is something skeptics know they can exploit to claim it is a fraud with the objective to both smear Hansen and as part of their wider campaign to throw the surface record into doubt. But what do skeptics say about all the UAH satellite record adjustments which have been upwards and significantly greater than GISTEMP? Do they generate a similar smear campaign out of that? Of course not, because that wouldn't fulfill their agenda. It has nothing to do with science, it's all about finding fresh and new ways to deny the science. It's why for example skeptics get so confused when it's pointed out that the satellite and surface records since 1979 show a similar amount of warming. They are conditioned and led by their masters to believe last 30 years of warming is exagerated in the surface records, and also conditioned to claim the satellite record is okay. So many of them don't even realize the two largely agree and when faced by that they kind of get a bit lost in dealing with it and fall back to something Hansen did. But what do skeptics say about all the UAH satellite record adjustments which have been upwards and significantly greater than GISTEMP? Do they generate a similar smear campaign out of that? There's nothing wrong with adjusting data as long as it is justified qualitatively. UAH adjustments are well documented, the system is under constant calibration and maintained. The surface station network is withering on the vine and has serious issues, hundreds of them literally. The network has been in disarray for decades, never maintained, dwindling in numbers and there are no plans to improve it. That you refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence documenting these problems only paints yourself in a corner. Hansen says completely ridiculous things; he should have been fired years ago for using tax payer dollars on company time to promote his own political agenda and violating policy. Roy Spencer left NASA because he honored and followed the rules prohibiting the type of behavior Hansen engages in. Are you sure you want to defend the surface station network again after getting bloodied so badly in the past? I have a quick addition to this thread. 1. I am not a skeptic. To be a skeptic there has to be something confirmed without a doubt, and the degree of AGW has deff not been confirmed without a doubt. IF it had been, people like me would not be questioning it. 2. I have nothing to gain nor lose within the arguement. I only look at "hard" data and make judgements on said data. 3. Dr. Hansen doesn't need anyone to smear him. He does it very well on his own. He has made dramtic predicitons based on his models that are not coming true. 4. IF AGWer's didn't use the scare tactics, they might have a chance. But when one looks at geological climate records and ralizes that the earth has had a very similiar climate in the past to the one we have today, that huge cause of alarm bears no fruit. IT is a barren tree. 5. When I read that a doubleing of co2 will cause surface temps to rise 3.2 or more C I almost fall of my chair laughing. I am not a learned man, but the little I still recall from physics etc tells me that this is impossible. 6. I am old enough and have seen enough of how the economics of most anything play out. Whenever someone tells you the sky is falling, you don't start digging pillings in......instead you start digging to see what that long term agenda really is.....because as we allllll know, the sky ISN'T falling. 7. Once again, to be a "skeptic" one has to have something to actually be skeptical about. And AGW just doesn't fit that bill folks. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 17, 2009 2:57:56 GMT
There's nothing wrong with adjusting data as long as it is justified qualitatively. UAH adjustments are well documented, the system is under constant calibration and maintained. The same can be said of GISTEMP. The skeptics are looking for "problems" only with GISTEMP. If they played the same game towards UAH they would find various "problems" there too. Ie a smear campaign towards UAH would work just the same as the one skeptics have mounted at GISTEMP, because such smear campaigns are not genuine analyse of the records (which would be too long and boring) but an exciting tabloid like series of blog posts exposing cartoonish "problems". For example where online can I find the source code for the UAH analysis? This is the kind of opening problem the skeptics look for. It sounds very much like a "problem" if the source code isn't available. Of course this isn't a problem for science, as there are other ways to validate the UAH record independantly - for example comparing it to RSS. But for the smear campaign the lack of source code can be played very nicely by appealing to some make-believe jobsworth world of science where every T must be crossed and every note ever written in "the lab" must be posted up online so everyone can see it or else the "Scientific Method" has been violated. It then goes further with people demanding that the source code be audited externally and the like. Some idiot comes up with their own guideline of best software practices and then suprise suprise finds that UAH doesn't follow it. Another blog post ensues. General silliness liek this simply to futher the tabloid uproar. Also while you say "There's nothing wrong with adjusting data", that's no constraint for a skeptic blog because they can (and do) paint the idea that there is something wrong with "adjusting data" even if they don't explictly state that. They will simply focus on words like "adjusting" to imply that it's a subjective alteration of raw data to fit it to the author's wishes. In fact on another thread notsocold demands from me unadjusted raw data for temperature records because he doesn't trust "adjusted" data. As for calibration and hardware issues, how about satellite drift? Another opening for the smear campaign, because this is an admitted problem - all the better. It doesn't matter if the problem is actually solved. The smear campaign will simply operate on the premise that it hasn't been solved, which is easy because none of the readers have the expertize to assess it anyway. Simply by talking about the "satellite drift" problem that's a win for the smear campaign because it casts doubt on the record. You don't have to actually say the records are wrong because of it, you merely have to talk about it a lot as if it is an undeterminable problem. In fact putting it all together and noting that "unknown" (we don't have the source code) "adjustments" (evil unscientific things) have been made to "correct" (implications of fraud) the record is the very basis for this kind of smear campaign. "Satellites have been drifting for decades. Not only that but they have been replaced over time requring the record to be patched together from different satellites. Noone goes up into orbit to maintain them after placement. That you refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence documenting these problems only paints yourself in a corner." See - easy. You've all failed to convince me there's a *genuine* problem with it. Remember discussions at the past have died out when I point out the fact that the satellite and surface records show a similar magnitude of warming over the past 30 years. Usually one of you lot changes the subject to something else to avoid exploring the implications of that. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 17, 2009 3:19:39 GMT
There's nothing wrong with adjusting data as long as it is justified qualitatively. UAH adjustments are well documented, the system is under constant calibration and maintained. The same can be said of GISTEMP. The skeptics are looking for "problems" only with GISTEMP. If they played the same game towards UAH they would find various "problems" there too. Ie a smear campaign towards UAH would work just the same as the one skeptics have mounted at GISTEMP, because such smear campaigns are not genuine analyse of the records (which would be too long and boring) but an exciting tabloid like series of blog posts exposing cartoonish "problems". For example where online can I find the source code for the UAH analysis? This is the kind of opening problem the skeptics look for. It sounds very much like a "problem" if the source code isn't available. Of course this isn't a problem for science, as there are other ways to validate the UAH record independantly - for example comparing it to RSS. But for the smear campaign the lack of source code can be played very nicely by appealing to some make-believe jobsworth world of science where every T must be crossed and every note ever written in "the lab" must be posted up online so everyone can see it or else the "Scientific Method" has been violated. It then goes further with people demanding that the source code be audited externally and the like. Some idiot comes up with their own guideline of best software practices and then suprise suprise finds that UAH doesn't follow it. Another blog post ensues. General silliness liek this simply to futher the tabloid uproar. Also while you say "There's nothing wrong with adjusting data", that's no constraint for a skeptic blog because they can (and do) paint the idea that there is something wrong with "adjusting data" even if they don't explictly state that. They will simply focus on words like "adjusting" to imply that it's a subjective alteration of raw data to fit it to the author's wishes. In fact on another thread notsocold demands from me unadjusted raw data for temperature records because he doesn't trust "adjusted" data. As for calibration and hardware issues, how about satellite drift? Another opening for the smear campaign, because this is an admitted problem - all the better. It doesn't matter if the problem is actually solved. The smear campaign will simply operate on the premise that it hasn't been solved, which is easy because none of the readers have the expertize to assess it anyway. Simply by talking about the "satellite drift" problem that's a win for the smear campaign because it casts doubt on the record. You don't have to actually say the records are wrong because of it, you merely have to talk about it a lot as if it is an undeterminable problem. In fact putting it all together and noting that "unknown" (we don't have the source code) "adjustments" (evil unscientific things) have been made to "correct" (implications of fraud) the record is the very basis for this kind of smear campaign. "Satellites have been drifting for decades. Not only that but they have been replaced over time requring the record to be patched together from different satellites. Noone goes up into orbit to maintain them after placement. That you refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence documenting these problems only paints yourself in a corner." See - easy. You've all failed to convince me there's a *genuine* problem with it. Remember discussions at the past have died out when I point out the fact that the satellite and surface records show a similar magnitude of warming over the past 30 years. Usually one of you lot changes the subject to something else to avoid exploring the implications of that. Socold: I gave you web sites that showed how far off the maps are that GISS develops. I would appreciate your take on what I posted in another thread if you would? I respect your opinion as you voice them well. Even when there are some obvios flaws in them....  |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 17, 2009 4:49:25 GMT
No scientists in this issue are neutral. They all have an opinion on it. I don't have a problem with scientists with an opinion, even in jobs with responsibilities. But when you suggest your opinion is so important to you that you think it is OK to violate the law in protest, to intimidate, to attack, to destroy, to wreak havoc. . . .then I would suggest your opinion has become so strong as to eliminate you from being able to actually do your job responsibly. There are limits. I don't have a problem with an airline pilot having a few drinks either. But if I see the guy completely besotten day after day, I am going to question the advisability of his flying an airplane with passengers. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 17, 2009 11:28:28 GMT
No scientists in this issue are neutral. They all have an opinion on it. I don't have a problem with scientists with an opinion, even in jobs with responsibilities. But when you suggest your opinion is so important to you that you think it is OK to violate the law in protest, to intimidate, to attack, to destroy, to wreak havoc. . . .then I would suggest your opinion has become so strong as to eliminate you from being able to actually do your job responsibly. There are limits. I don't have a problem with an airline pilot having a few drinks either. But if I see the guy completely besotten day after day, I am going to question the advisability of his flying an airplane with passengers. You are exagerating. Hansen hasn't suggested it's ok to "intimidate, to attack, to destroy, to wreak havoc". |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 17, 2009 16:45:45 GMT
You are exagerating. Hansen hasn't suggested it's ok to "intimidate, to attack, to destroy, to wreak havoc". Sure he does. He goes and testifies in court in support of ecoterrorists who are charged with such offenses. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 17, 2009 17:08:50 GMT
You are exagerating. Hansen hasn't suggested it's ok to "intimidate, to attack, to destroy, to wreak havoc". Sure he does. He goes and testifies in court in support of ecoterrorists who are charged with such offenses. They were charged with, and found innocent of, criminal damage. They didn't intimidate, attack, wreak havoc or destroy anything. They painted a message on a chimney stack. Now as far as I am aware, lots of chimney stacks have things painted on them and they continue to work quite well. So that is about as far removed from ecoterrorism as my granny shouting at kids to stop them chucking stones at ducks (though in this day and age I wouldn't be surprised if my granny ended up in front of the magistrate for such action). At what point would *you* take action if your politicians overrode their statutory duties to protect and preserve your nation through deceit, dissembling and inaction? |
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jul 18, 2009 4:46:26 GMT
And OJ Simpson was found "not guilty", Steve. So what's your point? And what was Hansen's testimony? (see below) He's saying it is ok to damage private property in the name of the AGW crusade. The jury bought in to it. These guys were not "innocent". Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the lawwww.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.htmlexcerpt: Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire. Professor Hansen, who first alerted the world to the global warming threat in June 1988 with testimony to a US senate committee in Washington, and who last year said the earth was in "imminent peril" from the warming atmosphere, asserted that emissions of CO2 from Kings-north would damage property through the effects of the climate change they would help to cause. |
|
