Interesting that you chose to try and insult rather than citing to anything that answers the central question.

Interesting that you consider a question to be an insult. This shows me that you are emotionally, rather than intellectually involved.
As for the science, there is plenty out there to read. If you are really interested, you will find it.

And, by the way, the sentance you quoted has my definition of “sound theory” right in it – but I suppose your reading comprehension, like your scientific knowledge, is stunted.

Sound theory is a theory wit raw data – that is release to other scientists (including those who are skeptical of your claims) that supports your theory. No AGW believer has ever produced any such data. Only graphs and anecdote. The graph (the hockey stick) is disproven. Anecdote – even that which is not disproven – is not scientific evidence.

Why does it trouble the left so much that some people want actual science with released data to back up the claims of AGW?

could there be an ulterior motive at play?

I can’t imagine why the request for actual science is so troubling to you.

So, again, you may BELIEVE in AGW. And some scientist whose funding and peer review depend on his belief in AGW may believe in AGW, but there is absolutely no science that has ever been produced anywhere – with raw data released to support it – that demonstrates AGW is a sound theory.

I am wondering what would qualify as a “sound theory” to you.

oakland on July 8, 2010 at 6:27 PM

Interesting that you chose to try and insult rather than citing to anything that answers the central question. Where is the actual science that does not depend on CRU’s “lost” data?

Sound theory, to me (unlike you), is based, you know, on actual data. Data which can be provided to other scientist to test against teh theory. What you have is a belief. YOu believe CRU when they tell you their theory is correct – even though they have refused to provide raw data to test the theory and now claim to have “lost” such data.

But somehow, I am anti-science or dumb.

Funny how one of us has a “scientific theory” that depends entirely on faith, and one of us is asking for scientific data. You think you are the latter, but you are the former.

“Today I made and appearance downtown
I am an expert witness, because I say I am
And I said, ‘Gentleman….and I use that word loosely…I will testify for you
I’m a gun for hire, I’m a saint, I’m a liar
Because there are no facts, no truth, just data to be manipulated
I can get you any result you like….what’s it worth to ya?
Because there is no wrong, there is no right
And I sleep very well at night
No shame, no solution
No remorse, no retribution
Just people selling t-shirts
just opportunity to participate in this pathetic little circus
And winning, winning, winning”

I’m rarely dissapointed…

overall body of science behind global warming theory,

Also, I’m 2000% sick of people pulling crap like asking a bunch of academics if they think “climate is changing” and then turn that around into “proof” that they support destroying modern industry and economies to “control” a trivial amount of CO2.

Also with the assumption that climate, unlike every other large, complex, chaotic system we’ve ever tried to measure, is somehow a positive feedback system and not a negative feedback system, despite the measured logarithmic decrease in absorption of infrared energy by increasing concentrations of CO2. I got yer tipping point right here.

And liars in general, sick of ‘em.

So, again, you may BELIEVE in AGW. And some scientist whose funding and peer review depend on his belief in AGW may believe in AGW, but there is absolutely no science that has ever been produced anywhere – with raw data released to support it – that demonstrates AGW is a sound theory.

I am wondering what would qualify as a “sound theory” to you.

As soon as someone points out that over 90% of the most respected scientists- climate research and otherwise- at every major research university in the USA (MIT, CalTech, Michigan, Stanford) and NASA- strongly agree with the overall body of science behind global warming theory,

bayam on July 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM

… I point out that it’s not true, never has been true, and when you make such extraordinary claims you have to prove them.

You couldn’t get 90% of scientists in any field to agree on such a narrow and controversial subject – unless you define “most respected” as “people who agree with me.” Actual polls of actual scientists that focus on actual facts and not vague generalities find no such consensus.

The CAGW crowd has been falsifying or just plain making up statistics since DAY ONE. And they’ve been getting caught at it from day one, and if it wasn’t for the shield of a sympathetic and dishonest MFM, the field might have been forced to retreat into doing actual real science about real problems rather than trying to get 10,000 journal references to their made-up computer models as “proof” of something.

a) it is irrelevent b/c unless you get China, India and south america on board, it is meaningless as Europe and North America contribute very little to current emissions relative to those countries;

b) those countries will not join in with killing their economies.

It makes no sense for the West to unilaterally commit economic suicide if it accomplishes nothing. (Right, i forgot, the “green jobs” will arrive and give everyone a pony so we don’t have to worry about that).

Five independent investigation have discovered no evidence of scientific fraud (although some bad behavior and lack of transparency). How many more will it take?

Hal_10000 on July 8, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Really, five? Please cite to them – meaning give me the links.

How about they turn over all of the emails and all of the raw data to scientists who are skeptical of AGW to review and see what they find? Rather than turning the info over to their buddies I mean?

Why in the world do you care about qualifications? You’ve never given any merit to qualifications of the scientists involved in global warming research. As soon as someone points out that over 90% of the most respected scientists- climate research and otherwise- at every major research university in the USA (MIT, CalTech, Michigan, Stanford) and NASA- strongly agree with the overall body of science behind global warming theory, you immediately say that all the ‘experts’ are wrong. Or claim that you’re able to assess the experts’ scientific work and invalidate it.

It’s interesting to hear you suddenly say that you’re concerned by the qualifications of the scientists involved in any aspect of global warming research.

bayam on July 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM

People say that all the time. It does not mean it is true. How about you name all of the qualified scientists who believe in AGW and I’ll test that against the known universe of qualified scientists and then we’ll see whether or not it is 90%.

And, last time I checked, science was not based on a vote. More than 90% of the pre-eminent scientists of yesteryear believed that the earth rotated around the sun. Just because a BELIEF is popular among certain idiots, does not make it a fact.

Once again, we come back to – where is there any science whatsoever supporting AGW? Every major “study” is based on the CRU data, which they cannot produce the raw data b/c they claim they “lost” it. Every major claim has been disproven. Himylain glaciers melting? false. More extreme hurricanes? False. Hockey stick? False. Ice Cap melting? Overall, false. It is melting in some places but thickening in others, and the net change is null.

So, again, you may BELIEVE in AGW. And some scientist whose funding and peer review depend on his belief in AGW may believe in AGW, but there is absolutely no science that has ever been produced anywhere – with raw data released to support it – that demonstrates AGW is a sound theory.

Why do you insist we act on a fully unproven belief? Why not actually, you know, conduct scientific inquiry? what do you have against scientific inquiry?

A panel of Bank Robbers will review the convictions of all bank robbers.

Many conviction reversals are expected…

Jim holds the Diploma in Company Direction from the Institute of Directors and is a Chartered Director.

If that was on my resume, I’d take it off or get myself prepared for a Directorship of Salting the Fries with the Manufacturing Division for Ristorante’ de Hamburger – the largest company in the industry. It goes without saying that he would also make an excellent mascot for the company.

Anyone who has ever – oh, I don’t know – held a job, knows that these outside consultants only report back what the organization wants reported back. He who pays the bill at these organizations gets to decide the outcome.

Cap and Trade is a scam, pure and simple. It is designed to transfer wealth from us to others. What is our reward for handing over our money? A pat on the head if lucky, a “bout time” if we’re not. No way, not a chance. Find another way to combat climate change IF it is a genuine problem.

Five independent investigation have discovered no evidence of scientific fraud (although some bad behavior and lack of transparency). How many more will it take?

Hal_10000 on July 8, 2010 at 11:20 AM

This is just a sideshow and an intentional distraction. The “climategate” affair really has very little to do with the science of global warming. For open minded folks who want to know what is going on with the climate, see what trained scientists are saying (and, they are not all in agreement).

BP, of course, like every other oil company, is very heavily invested in climate change and expects that some form of carbon-trading commodities market will prove to be a glory hole for the entire industry.

“Glory hole” in every sense of the word. Nasty, dirty pimps.

I can’t imagine how Professor Norton forgot to add “devilishly handsome, dashing, and terminally narcissistic.” In any event, his expertise in climate change should be clear: He is obviously an expert in everything, like the professor in Giligan’s Island.

…..Biting commentary and dead on.

………This is like watching the MSM here flopping around like fish out of water, spinning,lying,and making fools out of themselves in their attempts to cover for a President that is failing miserably but they are to heavily invested in to report on truthfully and accurately.

…The AGW followers are buried neck deep in their “Chicken little climate scare” scheme.So having no more credibility to lose, they blatantly go all out in a “save our butts” campaign that only the most brain dead idiot could not see through.

…..They really have hit a low water mark when scientist cannot be differentiated from the Keith Olbermman’s..

It’s Global Warming I tell you …

If you look at this by example, it’s pretty obvious that rising CO2 levels have driven a large number of otherwise “sane” politicians, journalists and scientists to “madness.”

It’s interesting to hear you suddenly say that you’re concerned by the qualifications of the scientists involved in any aspect of global warming research.

bayam on July 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM

It’s not their qualifications or CVs at issue here, it’s the absence of persons as members of the board who would be more inclined to question the “… rigor and honesty …” of the scientists at UEA-CRU. This was purely and simply a rubber-stamp inquiry with a fore-ordained conclusion.

This investigation does not address these concerns and thus does not resurrect credibility for the East Anglia “researchers” conclusions.