|
|
Post by socold on Nov 3, 2009 3:15:09 GMT
He won an award. The untrue $720,000 claim got parroted by many sources and just goes to show that these kind of "news" articles are sometimes just flat out false. True, the claim was only partially correct. The funding was to an organisation to enable it to defend Hansen (else he would have had to pay the legal costs etc himself, poor thing) As to how much of the 720,000 was spend on Hansen is a moot point. It was completely false. Hansen saw none of the alleged $720,000 which was the premise of the whole article. If this shouldn't backfire on the journalistic standards of "newsbusters", then what should? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 3, 2009 3:20:01 GMT
He won an award. The untrue $720,000 claim got parroted by many sources and just goes to show that these kind of "news" articles are sometimes just flat out false. Ok....he won an award. According to federal law tho, being he is a federal employee, he cannot accept monetary value. The reason I know this is my wife is a federal Employee. OK......who did he then dedicate this money too? IF he kept one penny of this, according to law, he should be in jail. |
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 3, 2009 3:43:42 GMT
It was completely false. Hansen saw none of the alleged $720,000 which was the premise of the whole article. The money was spent ON Hansen, in such a way that he didn't have to pay for his own defense. That is the point. I see no completely false at all. Money was given to HELP Hansen. Period. Full stop. End of story. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 3, 2009 11:38:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Nov 3, 2009 13:31:30 GMT
I think people who are paying attention know what to call the GISS revisions of historical temps to 'enhance' the current temps: fraud I think people who are paying attention know what the Mann school of climate model results, the 'hockey sticks' are: fraud. I think people who are thinking about this issue at all critically know that the AGW promoters and profiteers are committing massive scams. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 3, 2009 14:06:48 GMT
Much of this could be settled if there was an _open_ _public_ _scientific_ debate on these issues. However, this seems impossible now that things have gone political.
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Nov 3, 2009 19:50:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 3, 2009 20:27:27 GMT
You have to give Mr. Gore credit. He saw opportunity and he is making the most of it. With his political connections and position of power he advocated more research dollars so it would support his cause. One thinks of a lobbyist...well....he is one hell of a lobbyist. He is also, by example, about the poorest steward of the earth that is a leader in the AGW movement. To him this is a money game, to low people like me, this is fraudulent abuse of power. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 3, 2009 20:31:37 GMT
It really does sadden me that so many people are pawns in this game. And it seems, willing pawns. I am an older man, have seen both sides of this arguement. Heck, I was even sucked in for awhile till I read the actual IPCC reports, refreshed physics, basic chemistry, etc. Started reading the actual literature published....peer reviewed...yes even Briffa. Actually, I remember his paper as feeding my hunger as wayyyyy back when it was published I sensed a skunk under the chicken coop.
OH well, I am starting to grieve for my daughters future. IF this scam can perpetuate itself.....I dread what other abuse of true scientific endeavor is going to provide them in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Nov 4, 2009 6:31:26 GMT
Take comfort sig...from the fact that no major deal will be struck this year...and temperatures will drop once again after this El Nino finishes up. Eventually everyone will realize that we have not passed a "tipping point" and that global warming is not "accelerating". Without acceleration, even business as usual would keep us well under the (rather arbitrary) 2C limit...even if we assume ALL of the warming observed so far was from CO2.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 4, 2009 8:50:24 GMT
Take comfort sig...from the fact that no major deal will be struck this year...and temperatures will drop once again after this El Nino finishes up. Eventually everyone will realize that we have not passed a "tipping point" and that global warming is not "accelerating". Without acceleration, even business as usual would keep us well under the (rather arbitrary) 2C limit...even if we assume ALL of the warming observed so far was from CO2. " Eventually everyone will realize that we have not passed a "tipping point" and that global warming is not "accelerating""
Unfortunately, the early snows will be pointed at and called 'climate change' with ' see we told you that climate change would happen with all the carbon!'. Remember, this is now politics and that is the art of managing perception - so anything abnormal will be blamed on CO 2 emissions even a plunge into a little ice age. In politics it is about winning the debate/vote at the time - there is little or no subsequent validation of decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Nov 4, 2009 11:50:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 4, 2009 13:05:08 GMT
Looks like a cover up to me. It's clear that a skeptic has inserted misinformation into that page around 2007 and yet Watt's is trying to paint the removal of that misinformation as wrong. It's very conspicuous that Watt's completely ignores the big pieces of misinformation on the page when he takes quotes from it. He doesn't discuss the completely unjustified and outdated claim about the satellite record showing no warming. He doesn't discuss the part that implies global temperature peaked in the 30s. Supposedly Watt's wants kids to think the satellite record shows no warming and that global temperature peaked in the 30s. Perhaps he does. Evidentially the NOAA don't want kids to go away with such incorrect ideas however. If anything that page is an indictment on whoever inserted those claims, not on the NOAA for taking it down. The 1934 claims were added at a later date (2007). It will be interesting if they find out who did it and why. deepclimate.org/2009/11/02/contrarian-education-noa/ |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 4, 2009 13:25:36 GMT
Looks like a cover up to me. It's clear that a skeptic has inserted misinformation into that page around 2007 and yet Watt's is trying to paint the removal of that misinformation as wrong. It's very conspicuous that Watt's completely ignores the big pieces of misinformation on the page when he takes quotes from it. He doesn't discuss the completely unjustified and outdated claim about the satellite record showing no warming. He doesn't discuss the part that implies global temperature peaked in the 30s. Supposedly Watt's wants kids to think the satellite record shows no warming and that global temperature peaked in the 30s. Perhaps he does. Evidentially the NOAA don't want kids to go away with such incorrect ideas however. If anything that page is an indictment on whoever inserted those claims, not on the NOAA for taking it down. The 1934 claims were added at a later date (2007). It will be interesting if they find out who did it and why. deepclimate.org/2009/11/02/contrarian-education-noa/From your link: In 2007, NASA data showed that one-half of the ten warmest years occurred in the 1930’s with 1934 (tied with 2006) as the warmest years on record. (NASA data October 23, 2007 from web.archive.org/web/20071221055752/data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txtWhere is the evidence that some "denier" edited the kids page? Sounds like to me a typical RC coverup where Gavin got the kids the page deleted and now they are making excuses that it wasn't the kids page afterall. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 4, 2009 18:54:50 GMT
Looks like a cover up to me. It's clear that a skeptic has inserted misinformation into that page around 2007 and yet Watt's is trying to paint the removal of that misinformation as wrong. It's very conspicuous that Watt's completely ignores the big pieces of misinformation on the page when he takes quotes from it. He doesn't discuss the completely unjustified and outdated claim about the satellite record showing no warming. He doesn't discuss the part that implies global temperature peaked in the 30s. Supposedly Watt's wants kids to think the satellite record shows no warming and that global temperature peaked in the 30s. Perhaps he does. Evidentially the NOAA don't want kids to go away with such incorrect ideas however. If anything that page is an indictment on whoever inserted those claims, not on the NOAA for taking it down. The 1934 claims were added at a later date (2007). It will be interesting if they find out who did it and why. deepclimate.org/2009/11/02/contrarian-education-noa/From your link: In 2007, NASA data showed that one-half of the ten warmest years occurred in the 1930’s with 1934 (tied with 2006) as the warmest years on record. (NASA data October 23, 2007 from web.archive.org/web/20071221055752/data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txtWhere is the evidence that some "denier" edited the kids page? Sounds like to me a typical RC coverup where Gavin got the kids the page deleted and now they are making excuses that it wasn't the kids page afterall. archive.org shows that paragraph was added between June 2007 and January 2008, it wasn't in the original text. web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/append/lessonplans.htm |
|
