|
The cash just wasn't enough for Sarah Palin..... (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
A. It's climate change, not global warming. There's a reason for it.
B. Are you seriously denying all of the facts from the majority of the scientific community because of a small group with an agenda that was lying to serve their own purpose?
C. Why are basically defending Palin by turning the tables towards Gore? Last time I checked, just because one person from another political party does something wrong, another one from the opposing political party doing something similar does not make it right. |
A) Yes I know. The name has conveniently changed to "climate change" when "global warming" stopped working after it had been revealed there's been no warming trend for 10+ years.
B) The small group with the agenda is actually the entity "University of East Anglia's Climate Department" which is what everything is based on- most importantly, the IPCC's report to the UN which ALL this climate legislation is based on. Their head Dr. Jones stepped down already because of scandal. They were forced to admit their so called iron clad peer reviewed data (that they refused produce, then "lost") was partially sourced from a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine. Fascinating that the IPCC's head, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, is an economist and former railway engineer with zero science background, who has personal financial interest in climate change legislation. And that's all just the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended); if you want hard evidence of the UN, IPCC, and NASA's humiliating admissions that the lapdog media won't report, I'll provide on request. The climate science community you refere to is in chaos right now.
C) I'm not "defending" Palin... how she's making her money doesn't affect us at all, so a thread about it is just stupid Palin Derangement Syndrome. Al Gore is different because he stands to become a BILLIONAIRE if climate change legislation that he has been pushing, passes.. legislation that will hit all of us in the wallet, while he touts the virtues of "scaling back one's lifestyle" from his energy eating compound. Incredible. That's why I ask, why not outrage over that rather than Palin's? Total hypocricy in my opinion... and I am NOT a Palin supporter. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
 |
|
|
| The17sss |
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
where'd you get that photo? that's awesome! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
B) The small group with the agenda is actually the entity "University of East Anglia's Climate Department" which is what everything is based on- most importantly, the IPCC's report to the UN which ALL this climate legislation is based on. Their head Dr. Jones stepped down already because of scandal. They were forced to admit their so called iron clad peer reviewed data (that they refused produce, then "lost") was partially sourced from a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine. Fascinating that the IPCC's head, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, is an economist and former railway engineer with zero science background, who has personal financial interest in climate change legislation. And that's all just the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended); if you want hard evidence of the UN, IPCC, and NASA's humiliating admissions that the lapdog media won't report, I'll provide on request. The climate science community you refere to is in chaos right now. |
| quote: |
The Oxburgh report on the science done at the CRU has now been published and….. as in the first inquiry, they find no scientific misconduct, no impropriety and no tailoring of the results to a preconceived agenda, though they do suggest more statisticians should have been involved. They have also some choice words to describe the critics. |
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...nquiry-reports/
| quote: |
UEA welcomes the Report by the Lord Oxburgh’s Independent Panel, both in respect of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) being cleared of any scientific impropriety and dishonesty, and the suggestions made for improvement in some other areas.
The Oxburgh findings are the result of the latest scrutiny of CRU’s research. The first was the original peer review which led to publication in some of the world’s leading international science journals; the second was the Inquiry by the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee. Taken together, these must represent one of the most searching examinations of any body of scientific research. The veracity of CRU’s research remains intact after this examination.
It is gratifying to us that the Oxburgh Report points out that CRU has done a public service of great value by carrying out meticulous work on temperature records when it was unfashionable and attracted little scientific interest, and that the Unit has been amongst the leaders in international efforts to determine the overall uncertainty in the derived temperature records. Similarly, the Report emphasises that all of CRU’s published research on the global land-based instrumental temperature record included detailed descriptions of uncertainties and appropriate caveats. We also welcome the confirmation that, although some have accused CRU of trying to mislead, the Unit’s published research emphasises the late 20th Century discrepancy between tree-based proxy reconstructions of temperature and instrumental observations.
The Report points out where things might have been done better. One is to engage more with professional statisticians in the analysis of data. Another, related, point is that more efficacious statistical techniques might have been employed in some instances (although it was pointed out that different methods may not have produced different results). Specialists in many areas of research acquire and develop the statistical skills pertinent to their own particular data analysis requirements. However, we do see the sense in engaging more fully with the wider statistics community to ensure that the most effective and up-to-date statistical techniques are adopted and will now consider further how best to achieve this.
Another area for suggested improvement is in the archiving of data and algorithms, and in recording exactly what was done. Although no-one predicted the import of this pioneering research when it started in the mid-1980’s, it is now clear that more effort needs to be put into this activity. CRU, and other parts of the climate science community, are already making improvements in these regards, and the University will continue to ensure that these imperatives are maintained.
The Independent Climate Change E-mail Review investigation is underway, and therefore some important issues are still under active consideration. This document is our immediate written response to the Oxburgh Report. In the coming weeks we shall be considering precisely how we act upon the detailed findings of the Oxburgh Report, together with the findings of the parliamentary select committee and, in due course, the Independent Muir Russell review report.
We are grateful to Lord Oxburgh, and his international expert team, for the fair, efficient and prompt way in which they conducted their Assessment. |
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media...tements/oxburgh |
|
|
| leph555 |
| Palin should quit politics and do porn |
|
|
| The17sss |
:stongue:
Of course the UEA welcomes that report from Realclimate.org. That report was produced in a day or two... serious scrutiny! Realclimate.org is an organization who has been cited over and over for their "habit" of blatantly misrepresenting data. Oh, and their financial backers, Environmental Media Services? Yeah their founder and President was Arlie Schardt, who also served as the National Press Secretary for Al Gore's 1988 presidential campaign, and as Gore's Communications Director during his 2000 bid for the White House. FAIL.
Read for yourself, some of their antics:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1742/...-and-Arctic-Ice
What I'm talking about is actual admissions FROM the UEA, NASA, and the UN/IPCC that have not been reported in the mainstream media... embarrassing information about their mistakes and lies in their data reporting. But the cults of this religion believe anyway, like most sheep of other religions. Dude all you have to do is follow the money. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
:stongue:
Of course the UAE welcomes that report from Realclimate.org. |
uh, what does oxburgh have to do with realclimate.org?
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
That report was produced in a day or two... serious scrutiny! |
it was more than a month, but why let the facts get in the way?
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Realclimate.org is an organization who has been cited over and over for their "habit" of blatantly misrepresenting data. Oh, and their financial backers, Environmental Media Services? Yeah their founder and President was Arlie Schardt, who also served as the National Press Secretary for Al Gore's 1988 presidential campaign, and as Gore's Communications Director during his 2000 bid for the White House. FAIL.
Read for yourself, some of their antics:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1742/...-and-Arctic-Ice
|
what does this have to do with oxburgh's report on CRU?
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
What I'm talking about is actual admissions FROM the UEA, NASA, and the UN/IPCC that have not been reported in the mainstream media... embarrassing information about their mistakes and lies in their data reporting. But the cults of this religion believe anyway, like most sheep of other religions. Dude all you have to do is follow the money. |
Wtf are you on about? Every time there’s a climate “scandal” its all over the news. Mistakes and errors are not reason enough for partisan hacks like yourself to demonise things you know absolutely nothing about :
http://www.economist.com/opinion/di...ory_id=15719298 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Edit: to solidify my last sentence, the gentleman Lord Oxburgh who so quickly claimed "no impropriety whatsover" in the UEA/CRU/IPCC report (despite their own admissions of impropriety) is, by sheer coincidence, President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, Chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables, A member of the Green Fiscal Commission and the president of GLOBE International (Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment.... who stands to personally profit from climate change legislation! lol sheesh. |
| quote: |
In March 2010, he was appointed as the chairman of an inquiry into the research conducted by the Climatic Research Unit following the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident.[12] The report,[13] released 14 April, 2010, exonerated the CRU scientists of malpractice. Critics asserted Oxburgh's ties with businesses that stood to profit from the decision created a conflict of interest.[14][15] The University of East Anglia did not see any conflict of interest,[16] stating,
“The choice of scientists is sure to be the subject of discussion, and experience would suggest that it is impossible to find a group of eminent scientists to look at this issue who are acceptable to every interest group which has expressed a view in the last few months. Similarly it is unlikely that a group of people who have the necessary experience to assess the science, but have formed no view of their own on global warming, could be found. |
Whatever you say champ. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
what does this have to do with oxburgh's report on CRU? |
I repeat: Lord Oxburgh who so quickly claimed "no impropriety whatsover" in the UEA/CRU/IPCC report (despite their own admissions of impropriety) is, by sheer coincidence, President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, Chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables, A member of the Green Fiscal Commission and the president of GLOBE International (Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment).... who stands to personally profit from climate change legislation! That doesn't matter? LOL!
| quote: | | it was more than a month, but why let the facts get in the way? |
It was "15 man days" according to the BBC... so we were both wrong. (why the F did I think it was 2 days? sorry about that!). Why so quick to put stock in that report? From Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit (the guy who destroyed the bull Hockey Stick graph):
'The Oxburgh report ” is a flimsy and embarrassing 5-pages. They did not interview me (nor, to my knowledge, any other CRU critics or targets). The committee was announced on March 22 and their “report” is dated April 12 – three weeks end to end – less time than even the Parliamentary Committee. They took no evidence. Their list of references is 11 CRU papers, five on tree rings, six on CRUTEM. Notably missing from the “sample” are their 1000-year reconstructions: Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones 2003, Jones and Mann 2004, etc.)
They did not discuss specifically discuss or report on any of the incidents of arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data, mentioned in my submissions to the Science and Technology Committee and the Muir Russell Committee.
| quote: | Wtf are you on about? Every time there’s a climate “scandal” its all over the news. Mistakes and errors are not reason enough for partisan hacks like yourself to demonise things you know absolutely nothing about :
http://www.economist.com/opinion/di...ory_id=15719298 |
I love how you always call me a partisan hack... while you are, yourself, a serious partisan hack (you must be, if you argue the opposite of everything I say). But anyway, maybe over there you get scandal stories, but not here. That stuff gets buried, if reported at all. And we aren't talking about little errors... their biggest proclimations have turned out to be horse ; all them which their credibility was based, from the Hockey Stick graph, to arctic ice, to Himilayan glaciers melting, etc. |
|
|
| Lews |
| Are you seriously trying to claim that if you believe in something you shouldn't try to make a business to do something about it? :conf: |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Are you seriously trying to claim that if you believe in something you shouldn't try to make a business to do something about it? :conf: |
No... this is a lot different, not like believing you can produce the best double-pane insulated windows and create a business to profit from it. This is much more insideous because it has worldwide financial consequenes. As more and more sunlight shines on this thing, and exposes the lies, hidden information, and glaring mistakes of the data as time plays out, many like Al Gore or that tool who heads the IPCC refuse to acknowledge it. They just push even harder, regardless of the need to say, "wait a minute... we need to slow down and reevaluate."
These people are by no means altrustic and "fighting for a good cause"; they want to get rich off this opportunity, knowing it will hurt most individuals financially... all the while showing not an inkling of evidence they practice what they preach. It is so obvious that the biggest advocates stand to make the most money, and they've invested too much now to stop... the whole thing reeks! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I repeat: Lord Oxburgh who so quickly claimed "no impropriety whatsover" in the UEA/CRU/IPCC report (despite their own admissions of impropriety) is, by sheer coincidence, President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, Chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables, A member of the Green Fiscal Commission and the president of GLOBE International (Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment).... who stands to personally profit from climate change legislation! That doesn't matter? LOL! |
If the report was done by fozzy bear, and it stated that there were indeed grave concerns about the validity of the science, you’d be shouting it from the rooftop. Fact is whomever audited the report would have to be a respected climate scientist, and many of whom might be involved in hippy green activities, based upon their knowledge and expertise. Its fairly unavoidable.
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Why so quick to put stock in that report? |
Just pointing out that your claims about wanton dishonesty in the climate sciences doesn’t hold up compared to those who audited the particular data in question.
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
From Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit (the guy who destroyed the bull Hockey Stick graph):
'The Oxburgh report ” is a flimsy and embarrassing 5-pages. They did not interview me (nor, to my knowledge, any other CRU critics or targets). The committee was announced on March 22 and their “report” is dated April 12 – three weeks end to end – less time than even the Parliamentary Committee. They took no evidence. Their list of references is 11 CRU papers, five on tree rings, six on CRUTEM. Notably missing from the “sample” are their 1000-year reconstructions: Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones 2003, Jones and Mann 2004, etc.)
They did not discuss specifically discuss or report on any of the incidents of arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data, mentioned in my submissions to the Science and Technology Committee and the Muir Russell Committee. |
I was under the impression that the audit wasn’t meant to be exhaustive, and related purely to data involved in the stolen emails debacle?
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I love how you always call me a partisan hack... while you are, yourself, a serious partisan hack (you must be, if you argue the opposite of everything I say). |
No, im really not. I don’t care about climate change one way or the other. I have no vested interest. your interest is you feel the need to oppose everything you feel is from “the left”, not because you’re a climate expert, but because it suits your belief system. Virtually all climate change deniers are right-wing partisans without any foundation for holding the ideas they do.
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
But anyway, maybe over there you get scandal stories, but not here. That stuff gets buried, if reported at all. And we aren't talking about little errors... their biggest proclimations have turned out to be horse ; all them which their credibility was based, from the Hockey Stick graph, to arctic ice, to hymalayan glaciers melting, etc. |
That Himalayan issue is hugely irrelevant. This is what im talking about when I call you a partisan- one particular error about a prediction, and suddenly all the science in the world is suspect. What exactly did that particular error have to do with the veracity of the science that clearly shows a causal link between CO2 and temperature? The arctic ice issue you mention is completely wrong btw, if you think it supports your cause. Im about to have lunch now, so will be back later. |
|
|
|
|
