EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:52 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 504 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 34  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:53 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Fence sitters this is nothing we don't already know.

http://www.principia-scientific.org/hhs ... 5M.twitter

Quote:
Science is rife with corruption, incompetence, dishonesty and fabrication--and now, thanks to a frank resignation letter by the US's top scientific misconduct official we have a better idea why.

David E. Wright, a respected science historian, has just quit his job as director of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI; part of the Department of Health and Human Services) and is scathing about his experiences there.lab test

In his resignation letter, he accuses his boss HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Howard Koh of running an organization which is "secretive, autocratic and unaccountable."


Quote:
One example can be found in this letter from Senator Charles “Chuck” Grassley (R-IA) to the ORI about the case of an AIDS researcher at Iowa State University who faked data to obtain nearly $19 million in NIH grant money. The ORI banned the researcher from receiving grants for three years but has apparently made no attempt to recoup the missing $19 million.

This kind of skullduggery is especially prevalent in the fields of "climate science" and environmentalism because so much government, European Union, and United Nations money has been pumped into these fashionable areas of concern.

At UC Berkeley, a researcher named Tyrone Hayes has built a highly successful career on promoting the "endocrine disruptor" scare--doing enormous harm to the US agricultural industry--despite no other scientist having been able to replicate his research.

Or consider the nonsense widely promulgated about the Costa Rican golden toad--a species whose disappearance alarmist scientists frequently ascribe to "climate change," despite overwhelming evidence that it perished as a result of a fungus unconnected with "global warming."


Quote:
But few branches of science are immune, as this infographic from Clinicalpsychology.net makes clear.

Among its findings:

1 in 3 scientists admits to using questionable research practices

1 in 50 scientists admits to falsifying or fabricating data outright.

71 percent of scientists report that colleagues have used questionable methods

14 percent claim colleagues have falsified data

Among biomedical research trainees at the University of California, San Diego five percent admitted to modifying results and 81 percent said they would fabricate or modify results to win a grant or publish a paper.

And those are just the ones who'll admit it....


There's you tax dollars at work in the scientific community fence sitters. This really breeds trust doesn't it. #-o


Too bad the educational system failed you so badly. The information posted was solely dealing with biomedical research, which is not the same as all research although you claim it is.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:56 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Fence sitters here's an email.

Quote:
From: Dave Schimel To: Shrikant Jagtap Subject: RE: CO2 Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:21:35 -0600 (MDT) Cc: franci , Benjamin Felzer , Mike Hulme , schimel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kittel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nanr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Mike MacCracken

I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines. You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios provided by the synthesis team.

If you want to do 'realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are ultimatley a political decision (except in the sense that reserves and resources provide an upper bound).

'Advice' will be based on a mix of different approaches that must reflect the fact that we do not have high coinfidence in GHG projections nor full confidence in climate ystem model projections of consequences.

Dave


Assumption? What if storylines? They don't have high confidence in GHG projections? Don't have full confidence in climate system model? This email points out what I have been saying for years. GIGO. Climate model research is a complete joke. But, CO2 trajectories are a "political decision." Something else I've been saying for years. :-$


A lot more than assumptions on your part. There is no context provided at all, which means there is nothing from which to draw the conclusions you have referenced, but why let the truth get in the way of a good rant, right?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:59 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Fence sitters here is the USHCN temperature station at Blyth, California. The green arrow is the location of the Stevenson Screen.

Image

Way to close to a hot building. Way to close to a hot concrete walkway. Way to close to a street, and way to close to a parking lot.

Here is a ground level shot.

Image


And what are the trends shown for this site? the buildings look rather new, could they have been added to the site since it was first established? As there is no real data provided, the assumptions you make are not supported.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:06 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Here is a link with the monthly temperature trend average for Blyth, CA.

http://www.eminf.com/histtrends/040924. ... CA&units=C

Can you point out where the siting was changed since nothing in the picture appears to have been built in 1909 when the first data were recorded?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:45 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 364
Fence sitters aren't you tired of all the scare mongering from desperate cultists on their last legs. I am.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andr ... scare_you/

Quote:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has resorted to fraud. Shame on the media outlets which refuse to see or say, but all praise to Professor Richard Tol:


Prof Tol, from Sussex University, is a highly respected climate economist and one of two ‘co-ordinating lead authors’ of an important chapter in the 2,600-page report published last week by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

He has been widely criticised by green campaigners after he claimed that the much shorter ‘summary for policymakers’ – hammered out in all-night sessions between scientists and government officials over a week-long meeting in Yokohama, Japan – was overly ‘alarmist’.

In his view, the summary focused on ‘scare stories’ and suggestions the world faced ‘the four horsemen of the apocalypse’.

He said he did not want his name associated with it because he felt ‘uncomfortable’ with the way the summary exaggerated the economic impact of global warming.


12,000 hits. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:57 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Fence sitters aren't you tired of all the scare mongering from desperate cultists on their last legs. I am.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andr ... scare_you/

Quote:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has resorted to fraud. Shame on the media outlets which refuse to see or say, but all praise to Professor Richard Tol:


Prof Tol, from Sussex University, is a highly respected climate economist and one of two ‘co-ordinating lead authors’ of an important chapter in the 2,600-page report published last week by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

He has been widely criticised by green campaigners after he claimed that the much shorter ‘summary for policymakers’ – hammered out in all-night sessions between scientists and government officials over a week-long meeting in Yokohama, Japan – was overly ‘alarmist’.

In his view, the summary focused on ‘scare stories’ and suggestions the world faced ‘the four horsemen of the apocalypse’.

He said he did not want his name associated with it because he felt ‘uncomfortable’ with the way the summary exaggerated the economic impact of global warming.


12,000 hits. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


Can Milton perhaps buy a clue?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 7:31 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 364
Skeptical Science has been used often on this site. Just to let you know its nothing of the sort. Here are some of the mainstream, reasonable, lucid, and logical content featured on that site.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/0 ... cs-as.html

Quote:
Here's my two cents on engaging the public:

The biggest obstacles you need to understand are that the public doesn't understand the nature of science, ...they aren't rational decision-makers, [...]

Be aware that the press is very defensive about being called "liberal" by the heartland. So they will always give a denier equal weight under the guise of "We just report and let the reader make their own decision." The hell they do. Ask "When the press does a story on the Holocaust, do they give equal time to the revisionists?"

- Email from Greg Craven (2010)


Quote:
"Speaking of Nazism: From my perspective, there are many parallels between the arch-conservative movement in the US that is being orchestrated by the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, and their super rich cronies and the early rise of the Nazi party in Germany."

- John Hartz, Skeptical Science (2011)


Quote:
"However, comparing things to the years before WWII might be useful. Don't tie it in just to the Holocaust but rather the entire denial of the threat from Nazism"

- Glenn Tamblyn, Skeptical Science (2011)


Sounds like a real great group of guys over there. Do they sound like they have "consensus science" on their side? Do they sound like they're confident in the knowledge that they are right? Do they sound like they are ready to debate your future and how you will live? How about it fence sitters do they speak for you?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:44 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Skeptical Science has been used often on this site. Just to let you know its nothing of the sort. Here are some of the mainstream, reasonable, lucid, and logical content featured on that site.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/0 ... cs-as.html

Quote:
Here's my two cents on engaging the public:

The biggest obstacles you need to understand are that the public doesn't understand the nature of science, ...they aren't rational decision-makers, [...]

Be aware that the press is very defensive about being called "liberal" by the heartland. So they will always give a denier equal weight under the guise of "We just report and let the reader make their own decision." The hell they do. Ask "When the press does a story on the Holocaust, do they give equal time to the revisionists?"

- Email from Greg Craven (2010)


Quote:
"Speaking of Nazism: From my perspective, there are many parallels between the arch-conservative movement in the US that is being orchestrated by the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, and their super rich cronies and the early rise of the Nazi party in Germany."

- John Hartz, Skeptical Science (2011)


Quote:
"However, comparing things to the years before WWII might be useful. Don't tie it in just to the Holocaust but rather the entire denial of the threat from Nazism"

- Glenn Tamblyn, Skeptical Science (2011)


Sounds like a real great group of guys over there. Do they sound like they have "consensus science" on their side? Do they sound like they're confident in the knowledge that they are right? Do they sound like they are ready to debate your future and how you will live? How about it fence sitters do they speak for you?


Quoting another forum as a source is on the very edge of what is acceptable as a reference ....

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:55 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 364
Fence sitters NASA scientists seem to be the gold standard with some cultists. Here you go.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... s-Nonsense

Quote:
"The term 'climate change' is meaningless. The Earth's climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of 'man-made climate change' is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.

"The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the 'greenhouse gas' causes 'global warming' - in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.

"There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years."


Quote:
"This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, it's not up to me to prove it does not exist, it's up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.

"Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming."

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:31 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Fence sitters NASA scientists seem to be the gold standard with some cultists. Here you go.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... s-Nonsense


Quote:
"This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, it's not up to me to prove it does not exist, it's up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.

"Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming."


A source which does not understand the term "theory" in the scientific reference is less than useless in trying to claim the scientists are somehow wrong .....

If one develops a scientific hypothesis and said hypothesis cannot be proved to be false it will eventually move to the status of a scientific theory. The definitions used by the political site are, as usual, far from scientific.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:35 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Fence sitters NASA scientists seem to be the gold standard with some cultists. Here you go.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... s-Nonsense

Quote:
"The term 'climate change' is meaningless. The Earth's climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of 'man-made climate change' is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.

"The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the 'greenhouse gas' causes 'global warming' - in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.

"There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years."


The exhibited lack of understanding concerning the stability of the concentration of CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere, the record of direct and indirect measurements of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and
Greenhouse Effect is on a par with a political source Milton would reference.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:30 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 364
Fence sitters another one comes clean.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eport.html

Quote:
A top US academic has dramatically revealed how government officials forced him to change a hugely influential scientific report on climate change to suit their own interests.

Harvard professor Robert Stavins electrified the worldwide debate on climate change on Friday by sensationally publishing a letter online in which he spelled out the astonishing interference.

He said the officials, representing ‘all the main countries and regions of the world’ insisted on the changes in a late-night meeting at a Berlin conference centre two weeks ago.

Three quarters of the original version of the document ended up being deleted.



Quote:
Prof Stavins told The Mail on Sunday yesterday that he had been especially concerned by what happened at a special ‘contact group’. He was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by ‘45 or 50’ government officials.

He said almost all of them made clear that ‘any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.’

Many of the officials were themselves climate negotiators, facing the task of devising a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol in negotiations set to conclude next year.

Prof Stavins said: ‘This created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. It has got to the point where it would be reasonable to call the document a summary by policymakers, not a summary for them, and it certainly affects the credibility of the IPCC. The process ought to be reformed.’

He declined to say which countries had demanded which changes, saying only that ‘all the main countries and regions were represented’.

Some deletions were made at the insistence of only one or two nations – because under IPCC rules, the reports must be unanimous.

He revealed the original draft of the summary contained a lot of detail on how international co-operation to curb emissions might work, and how it could be funded. The final version contains only meaningless headings, however, with all details removed.


_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:02 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 364
I don't even need to point out what is wrong with this station located in Glenville, Alabama. I'll do it anyway. Just feet away from hot AC exhaust. One foot away from a cinderblock building. One foot away from a hot concrete pad, and two feet away from a diamond plate metal cover of some sort, and it looks to be a couple of feet under the standard 5 foot height requirement. Stellar methodology once again demonstrated by this USHCN site. Stellar. :clap: :clap:

Image

Hey. 13,000 hits. Way to go fence sitters!!! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2014 8:52 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 364
A little look back fence sitters.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/04/from ... ation.html

Quote:
"Christy’s assessment, when combined with the UEA emails, provides substantial insight into how this hockey stick travesty occurred. My main unanswered question is: How did Michael Mann become a Lead Author on the TAR? He received his Ph.D. in 1998, and presumably he was nominated or selected before the ink was dry on his Ph.D. It is my suspicion that the U.S. did not nominate Mann (why would they nominate someone for this chapter without a Ph.D.?)...Instead, I suspect that the IPCC Bureau selected Mann; it seems that someone (John Houghton?) was enamored of the hockey stick and wanted to see it featured prominently in the TAR."


Another point of view.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc- ... key-stick/

Quote:
In simplified terms, IPCC Lead Authors are nominated by their countries, and downselected by the IPCC bureaucracy with help from others (the process is still not transparent to me – who really performs this down-select?) The basic assumption is that the scientists so chosen as Lead Authors (L.A.s) represent the highest level of expertise in particular fields of climate science (or some derivative aspect such as agricultural impacts) and so may be relied on to produce the most up-to-date and accurate assessment of the science. In one sense, the authors of these reports are volunteers since they are not paid. However, they do not go without salaries. Government scientists make up a large portion of the author teams and can be assigned to do such work, and in effect are paid to work on the IPCC by their governments. University scientists aren’t so lucky but can consider their IPCC effort as being so close to their normal research activities that salary charges to the university or grants occur. Travel expenses were paid by the IPCC for trips, in my case, to Australia, Paris, Tanzania, New Zealand, Hawaii, and Victoria, Canada. Perhaps it goes without saying that such treatment might give one the impression he or she is an important authority on climate.

As these small groups of L.A.s travel the world, they tend to form close communities which often re-enforce a view of the climate system that can be very difficult to penetrate with alternative ideas (sometimes called “confirmation bias” or “myside bias”.) They become an “establishment” as I call them. With such prominent positions as IPCC L.A.s on this high profile topic, especially if they support the view that climate change is an unfolding serious disaster, they would be honored with wide exposure in the media (and other sympathetic venues) as well as rewarded with repeated appointments to the IPCC process. In my case, evidently, one stint as an L.A. was enough.

The second basic problem (the first was the murkiness of our science) with these assessments is the significant authority granted the L.A.s. This is key to understanding the IPCC process. In essence, the L.A.s have virtually total control over the material and, as demonstrated below, behave in ways that can prevent full disclosure of the information that contradicts their own pet findings and which has serious implications for policy in the sections they author. While the L.A.s must solicit input for several contributors and respond to reviewer comments, they truly have the final say.


Quote:
My experience as Lead Author in the IPCC TAR, Chapter 2 “Observed Climate Variability and Change”, allowed me to observe how a key section of this chapter, which produced the famous Hockey Stick icon, was developed. My own topic was upper air temperature changes that eventually drew little attention, even though the data clearly indicated potentially serious inconsistencies for those who would advocate considerable confidence in climate model projections.


So, what we have here is a study from a complete rookie (Mann) that fit the narrative. We have a study that didn't fit the narrative that was ignored. The IPCC is a completely political body working backward from a preconceived notion. Modern climate science at its best.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2014 8:02 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Odd THE Hockey Stick is still being claimed to be inaccurate while there are more than a dozen other papers by different authors with similar reconstructions. How is one wrong and not all of the others? Simply put, it is not wrong, but the critical statements against it try to create that perception.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 504 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 34  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group