This set of episodes has demeaned all of the contributions by scientists who are involved in legitimate and rigorous scientific testing in climate research.

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Therein lies the problem.

There is no legitimate and rigorous testing in climate research. WHich is why mistakes like this can lie around for years before they are caught.

What part of rigorous and legitimate testing tells a researcher that it is OK to completely withold their raw data and the methods they used to manipulate the raw data?

New factual errors were revealed yesterday in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 landmark “scientific” report. The latest crop, published in the Telegraph, include: * The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power t…

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs. Because without Consensus, scientific conclusions could be challenged by people de…

I’ve been saying for years now, that today’s dump sites will be the profitable mines of tomorrow. When the materials become valueable enough (as they would if they started running out of the raw materials) then companies would rush to be first in line to start recovering from old dumps.

MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 8:50 AM

My geology teacher said the same thing. Landfills are a ready source of raw materials, it’s just a matter of when the cost processing landfill material drops below the cost of extracting the same material from the earth in the traditional manner.

I am not sure how you feel that this relates to the present day issue of anthropogenic global warming. Are you implying that we would have nothing to fear from rapid changes in climate (temperature, rainfall, humidity, etc) because the earth has undergone such changes in the past?

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Not quite. Humans could have something to fear from climate changes. Whether it’s increased desertification or rising sea levels, climate change affects people.

But I don’t believe the SOURCE of the climate change is at all relevant. Do polar bears swim better if warming is natural, and swim worse if the warming is man-made?

2,000+ scientists signed on to this scam? I wonder how many “peer reviewed” it beforehand. One, maybe two?

KillerKane on February 7, 2010 at 6:09 PM

This is another one of the great lies.

There were not 2000 seperate scientists. Of all the papers accepted by the IPCC, the grand total of names on all the papers was 2000. Once you eliminate the duplicates, the total of unique names drops to a couple hundred.
Then when those couple hundred are polled as to whether they believe in catastrophic AGW, the number drops to a few dozen.

(Unfortunately, only that few dozen were permitted to have any input into writting the summaries.)

I’m being obtuse by asking questions?

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Since these questions have been answered time and time again. Yes, you are being obtuse.

I am not sure how you feel that this relates to the present day issue of anthropogenic global warming. Are you implying that we would have nothing to fear from rapid changes in climate (temperature, rainfall, humidity, etc) because the earth has undergone such changes in the past?

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 3:03 PM

No, it means that the fact that the climate is changing, is not evidence that it must be caused by man.

And this being a given, why not attempt to discern the extent of mankind’s involvement in it (climate change)?

Also, can we say that rapid climate change is something to be desired? If we know more about it, then we may be able to prepare for it better, no?

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 2:33 PM

They have been trying to discern if there is a man-caused component. So far they can’t find it.

Also, the climate has been known to make rapid changes since long before man got around to altering the environment.

I beg to differ with you on this one, AGW is made-up from whole cloth. Plastic bags and the problems that arrise from near permanant half-life is a serious problem.

Archimedes on February 7, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Unless one can demonstrate that the bags are actually causing a problem, the fact that they survive a long time without degrading is irrelevant. (BTW, they only survive a long time if they are protected from sunlight. UV breaks them down in a few years.)

The claim that the bags hurt sea turtles and such was based purely on anecdote and conjecture. Serious studies have found no links.

Reminds me of Leo Getz, Joe Pesci’s character in the Lethal Weapon movies.
29Victor on February 7, 2010 at

Dang close!

Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.
AL GORE, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005

Yep, and the Two thousand scientists sent their DATA to a central hub like East Anglia Climate Research Unit that disseminated DATA info back to the Two thousand scientists, scientific community, AFTER said DATA had been “Adjusted”.

Amazingly the Two thousand scientists of this scientific community, took the “Adjusted” DATA, plugged it into their “collective” model and all came to the same conclusion?

Go figure!

Oh, and the Tasiday were bullsh!it too.

All I know is that it was too good to be true from the start. What caught my eye was its solution = wealth transfer. It simply would never work, because people would resist the new taxes required. This country was based on resistance to unnecessary taxation and abuse of rights. What may have worked in Europe could never have worked here. heck, it didn’t even work in Canada! Had it passed, I would have put on my tricornered hat and picked up my musket and stood on Concord Bridge against the Greencoats to defend my rights. I would fire the second shot heard ’round the world.

Stick a fork in this global warming scam, it’s done. Well, it never really had a chance.

Oakland do tell me why temperatures rose up to 1940 then tailed off til about 1975? Before 1940 the earth was no where near as industrial as it is now? This is just silly.

I don’t know. What is your take on this?

And YES you do push the lie of man made GW . You play games but you are part of it. quit with your games.

Please show me where I “pushed” the “lie” of man made GW. Are you not free to believe what you wish? I am not sure of what “games” I am part of; please enlighten me, if you would. Thanks for answering.

And YES you do push the lie of man made GW . You play games but you are part of it. quit with your games. We ain’t buying and less and less of the world is. Thank goodness.

You accused my of “spewing” lies. Please quote for me the “lies” that I “spewed”.

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 4:43 PM

So you have not stated that man has caused GW ? I guess not. I must have been wrong….sorry.

———-

Did you notice that Al Gore was biggest during those hottest years that the AGW proponents claim. Ever think that he was the cause with all that hot air he let out? Makes as much sense.

And Wikipedia is dealing with a much larger universe of subjects.