Was the Goracle wrong?

Topspin

Verified User
Al Gore's previous predictions have not exactly worked out.

He claimed that the world would continually, without slowing or reversal, get warmer over the next century.
He claimed that hurricanes would get more numerous and more destructive in 2006, when they've actually become less numerous and less destructive.
He claimed that the arctic ice would all be melted by this year, when it has in fact returned to levels not seen for decades.
He claimed that polar bears were endangered and that their population would be wiped out when it is actually increasing and there are more now than at any point in recorded history.
 
Planet Has Cooled Since Bush Took Office’ – Gore Admits 'I've failed badly'
Inhofe EPW Press Blog ^ * November 20, 2008 * Marc Morano

Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:41:14 PM by EPW Comm Team

‘Planet Has Cooled Since Bush Took Office’ – Scientists Continue Dissenting – Gore Admits 'I've failed badly' - Global Sea Ice GROWS!

Global Warming Theory has ‘failed consistently and dramatically’

Read Part Two of this Report Here:

Washington DC - The bad news for global warming alarmists just keeps rolling in. Below is a very small sampling of very inconvenient developments for Gore, the United Nations, and the mainstream media. Peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute climate fears. The majority of data presented below is from just the past few weeks. Also see: U.S. Senate Minority Report: “Over 400 Prominent Scientists (and rapidly growing) Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007” & ‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008 - July 18, 2008 & An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK Bush The Cooler: 'Planet has cooled since Bush took office' – November 12, 2008 Excerpt: On this symbolic date, it seems worthwhile to reflect that the planet has not only cooled since George W. Bush took office – pause and let the significance of that one sink in – but began to chill significantly at almost precisely the moment that we signed the Kyoto Protocol, exactly ten years ago today.

NOAA: U.S. on track for coolest year since 1997- November 12, 2008 Excerpt: The calendar year isn't exactly over yet, but the people who watch such things --- namely the National Climatic Data Center --- are reporting that through its first 10 months 2008 is shaping up to be the coolest year in the United States since 1997.

‘The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists’ - By Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center where he received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville) Excerpt: New papers Debunk Warming Fears: The first paper showed how none of 18 IPCC climate models, in over 1,000 years of global warming simulations, ever exhibits the negative feedback we have measured from global satellite data. The second paper revealed new satellite evidence that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation modulates the Earth's radiative balance by an amount that, when put into a simple climate model, can explain 75% of global warming over the 20th Century....including the slight cooling between 1940 and 1980. Since our previous publications have been basically censored by the news media, and I have now experienced scientific censorship (which I suppose was long overdue), I have decided to take my message to the people in a second book. In anticipation of trouble getting these papers published, I had already started the book awhile back...it is now about 80% finished, heavily illustrated. The working title is: The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists. My book agent is currently scouting for publishers.

UK Astrophysicist: Global Warming Theory has ‘failed consistently and dramatically’ - October 28, 2008 - By Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, founder of the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather Action and creator of the solar-particle based "Solar Weather Technique" of long range weather forecasting. Excerpt: Global Warming is over and Global Warming Theory has failed. There is no evidence that CO2 drives world temperatures or any consequent Climate Change. According to Official data in every year since 1998 world Temperatures have been colder than that year yet CO2 has been rising rapidly. The rate of decline of world temperature has got more rapid since 2002; and Arctic ice has increased in the last year : ( Including maps of ice extent: Arctic ice increasing rapidly also see Increase by nearly a half million square miles) The UN IPCC predictions from 2000 have failed consistently and dramatically.

Global Sea Ice Growing at Fastest Pace on Record -- Returns to Levels from the 1980s – Daily Tech – November 7, 2008 Excerpt: An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels. In sharp contrast to the rapid melting seen last year, the amount of global sea ice has rebounded sharply and is now growing rapidly. The total amount of ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979.

Report: Global sea ice area: now same as in 1979! - 'Fastest move in the 30 year history' – November 6, 2008

Arctic Sea Ice Extent: In October 2008, Fastest Ever Growth

(Should we celebrate?) A Depression Would Reduce Carbon Emissions Excerpt: So, why isn’t all the bad economic news openly embraced as positive news by those that advocate we urgently cut carbon dioxide emissions. Surely, if solutions to global warming are so pressing, the best thing that could possibly happen is a recession if not a depression?

Earth welcomes economic meltdown to stop global warming? – ‘May give the planet a breather from the excessively high CO2’ – October 7, 2008 Excerpt: (Reuters) - A slowdown in the world economy may give the planet a breather from the excessively high carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions responsible for climate change, a Nobel Prize winning scientist said on Tuesday.

Gore warns world may face civilization 'collapse' – November 19, 2008 Gore Excerpt: A new study suggests the Mayan civilization might have collapsed due to environmental disasters. […] As we move towards solving the climate crisis, we need to remember the consequences to civilizations that refused to take environmental concerns seriously.

Gore: U.S. needs 'emergency rescue of human civilization' from global warming – NY Times – November 9, 2008 ‘We're not scared anymore Mr Gore!’ Declares New Book – ‘A Climate Change Story For Little Skeptics’ - A climate change parody by geologist Marc Hendrickx - November 11, 2008 Excerpt: Here’s a new climate change book for your Christmas reading: We’re not scared anymore Mr Gore. A climate change parody by geologist Marc Hendrickx.

Gore laments global warming efforts: 'I've failed badly' - Washington Post – November 11, 2008 Excerpt: When asked about the goal of his movie "An Inconvenient Truth"--to wake people up to an approaching global, environmental crisis-Gore said "I think it's been a failure . . . I feel, in a sense, that I've failed badly." Skeptical UK scientist mocks Gore's Nobel: 'There’s no accounting for human folly' – November 19, 2008 (By Physicist Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton, is a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the Royal Society of London.) Excerpt: Mr. Dyson had an argument anyway with the scores of people (like Al Gore) who weren’t present to defend their belief in the dire consequences of global warming. (“There’s no accounting for human folly,” Mr. Dyson said when asked about Mr. Gore’s Nobel Prize.) Climate change momentum fading: Asia-Pacific survey – November 19, 2008 Excerpt: “You see the same shift in focus in the public away from climate change questions to questions of economic survival and growth," said Woo, president of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.

CO2 hysteria continues its slow death – November 20, 2008 Excerpt: at this week's summit of 21 Pacific Rim nations, global warming is barely on the agenda. In its place: the financial crisis. "The interest and focus on climate change has dissipated somewhat," said Woo Yuen Pau, CEO of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.

Prominent Geologist says ‘Global Cooling is Here’ -- Could ‘plunge Earth into another Little Ice Age!’ – November 2, 2008 – (By Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications.) Excerpt: Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.

Extensive global COOLING news round up on Biologist Jennifer Marohasy's website – October 31, 2008

Global warming predictions are overestimated, suggests Cornell study on black carbon – November 18, 2008 Excerpt: A detailed analysis of black carbon -- the residue of burned organic matter -- in computer climate models suggests that those models may be overestimating global warming predictions. A new Cornell study, published online in Nature Geosciences, quantified the amount of black carbon in Australian soils and found that there was far more than expected, said Johannes Lehmann, the paper's lead author and a Cornell professor of biogeochemistry. The survey was the largest of black carbon ever published. […] The findings are significant because soils are by far the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined. Small changes in how carbon emissions from soils are estimated, therefore, can have a large impact. […] "But this particular aspect, black carbon's stability in soil, if incorporated in climate models, would actually decrease climate predictions."

'Life-long liberal Democrat' Meteorologist rejects 'fear mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming' - By Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry Excerpt: s a scientist and life-long liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming to be a disservice to science, to your readers, and to the quality of the political dialogue leading up to the election. […] The global warming alarmists don't even bother with data! All they have are half-baked computer models that are totally out of touch with reality and have already been proven to be false.

Ski Paradise: ‘Snow-vember’ Sees Ski Resorts Open Early Around The World – November 17, 2008 Excerpt: ‘Snow-vember’ Sees Ski Resorts Open Early Around The World Skiinfo.com, is reporting bumper pre-season snow across the northern hemisphere with the Alps, Pyrenees, Scandinavia and the Rockies all receiving huge early snow falls that have brought wonderful powder snow conditions for skiers and boarders on the glacier ski areas that were already open, and led to an increasing number of resorts in Canada, Italy, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and the US to open up to a month earlier than planned

South African Scientist Warns of ‘Interference’ By ‘Old Colonial Powers’ – ‘WWF and Greenpeace are not welcome in this country’ – Exposes ‘Climate Alarmism’ November 14, 2008 By Professor Dr. William J.R. Alexander, Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters. Excerpt: Have you not noticed the growing opposition by African countries to interference in our affairs by the old colonial powers? […] The WWF and Greenpeace are not welcome in this country. Nor are the activities of their South African lackeys. […] Your vigorous pro-environmental, anti-social actions will soon be seen as pressures by a small, affluent white community who have no concern at all for South Africa’s large and growing, economically disadvantaged black communities. […] Many thanks for all those emails urging me to continue exposing this whole climate alarmism issue for what it is.

Africa to pay for Europe's "green policies" Excerpt: Campaigns to buy locally produced food and travel to local destinations particularly hit out against African products. Consumers in Europe are again growing more environmentally conscious and are willing to use their purchasing power to assist in what is widely seen as our era's most pressing problems - the overspending of energy and global warming. Meanwhile, European politicians have been those pressuring strongest to gain support for the Kyoto Protocol while having totally failed to lower emissions of climate gases in their own countries. In every country, emissions have steadily increased.

Another Dissenter: Atmospheric Scientist says ‘growing number of scientists’ are skeptical of warming fears! – November 20, 2008 Dr. James Koermer, a meteorology professor at Plymouth State University presentation it titled “Inconvenient Science." Excerpt: Kevin McGuire, a fellow professor at PSU, said Koermer's presentation was "very well done." "I agree that there are a lot of uncertainties," McGuire said about the causes and nature of global climate change. […] During a presentation at the university on Wednesday, Koermer explained why there are a growing number scientists, such as himself, who don't subscribe to the popular theory on global warming. […]Koermer said just because he doesn't think man-made carbon dioxide is contributing significantly to climate change, it does not mean he is opposed to the increased use of renewable fuel sources. […] "Over millions of years there have been periods when we have been hotter than we are today," Koermer said. He added that while humans do have an impact on the climate, it is minimal compared to natural phenomena. He also said that humans are not the biggest producers of carbon dioxide and that the gas is not the most abundant green house gas in the atmosphere. That title goes to water vapor, which is produced by the world's oceans.

Another Dissenter: Astrophysicist says put IPCC reports ‘in the trash!’ – - November 20, 2008 "What I'd do with the IPCC report is to put it in the trash can because that's all it's worth," said Dennis Hollars, who holds a doctorate in astrophysics from New Mexico State University. His brazen pronouncement produced an eruption of laughter among the packed audience. Hollars produced a similar reaction from the crowd when, challenged by Gershenson about the inconsistencies of the data in the graphs he was presenting, he claimed to "not care" which one was accurate. […] Hollars, meanwhile, claimed that carbon dioxide was an insignificant component of the earth's atmosphere and that, rather than being the purveyor of doom it is currently viewed as today, it is needed in order for plants to grow.

Another Dissenter: Meteorologist Declares ‘CO2 has never led to an increase in temperature’ - November 20, 2008 Excerpt: “One of the central arguments of the side arguing that global warming is a natural occurrence was that temperatures were driving the increase in carbon dioxide, rather than the commonly accepted reverse. "CO2 has never led to an increase in temperature, based on historical record," said Robert Cohen, a certified consulting meteorologist.

Scientist rejects UN climate fears as 'simplistic, superficial, and now proven wrong' - November 19, 2008 (By Dr. Dr Jim Sprott, OBE, MSc, PhD, FNZIC, a consulting chemist and forensic scientist of Auckland.) Excerpt: “The projections of the IPCC are simplistic, superficial, and now proven wrong. The whole issue requires a fresh start, based on the mass of irrefutable data which has been assembled.”

'Record inactivity' -- 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season 'lowest in 30-years'

Greenland ice cap 'uncertainty makes future predictions almost meaningless'

Arctic sea ice extent now GREATER than in 2002

UN Scientist Ridicules Global Warming Linked National Security Fears

Global Warming Has Stopped – by UN IPCC Reviewer Christopher Monckton

Global Cooling? - 'Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof' - National Post – October 20, 2008

Another Dissenter: 'I am unconvinced' about man-made warming - Australian long-range weather forecaster Haydon Walker - November 2, 2008 More info no Walker here: Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.

Researchers find arctic may have had less ice 6000-7000 years ago Excerpt: Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.

For full report on Arctic ice see this report: Scientists Counter Latest Arctic 'Record' Warmth Claims as 'Pseudoscience’ – Comprehensive Arctic Data Round Up – October 17, 2008

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. John Christy disputes new Antarctic claims - 'Climate models just don't have the variability that nature provides' – Disputes Antarctic and Arctic Melt Fears – October 30, 2008 Excerpt:. John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama, has done studies on climate models and says they are extremely limited tools in trying to mimic what happens in nature. He said they are unable to reproduce all of the naturally occurring influences and, as a result, give a false picture of what might be causing changes in the environment. […] "Just 1,000 years ago the Arctic was much warmer than it is today so it's interesting that they would use the term conclusively," he said. "Natural variability can account for warming since the Arctic has been warmer before."

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5htM3_ClgqhzIoMceRWnwQvMvQIqw Why the EPA should find against “Endangerment” – November 19, 2008 Excerpt: The IPCC’s AR4 was published in the spring of 2007, but to meet the deadline for inclusion in the AR4, scientific papers had to be published by late 2005/early 2006. So, in the rapidly evolving field of climate change, by grounding its TSD in the IPCC AR4 the EPA is largely relying on scientific findings that are, by late 2008, nearly 3 years out of date. And a lot has happened in those intervening three years. • Global temperatures have declined…

Physicist predicts man-made global warming fear bubble to burst in 2008 – November 16, 2008 - Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen, an MIT educated physicist, author of the book An Introduction to High-Temperature Superconductivity, and writer of the popular newspaper column "Ask the Everyday Scientist."

UK Scientist: – ‘Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables’ Not Just CO2! By UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London Excerpt: As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets. http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Global_...tries/2008/8/27_Wot!_No_Sunspots_At_All!.html

We can't think of any other cause, it must be us = 'Prehistoric civilisation' blaming thunderstorms on upset gods - October 31, 2008 Excerpt: 'We can't think of any other cause, it must be us' - This is the depth to which scientific research into climate change has sunk, like a kind of prehistoric civilisation that blames thunderstorms, earthquakes and volcanoes on humanity somehow having "upset the gods". A Canadian study has concluded that we must be causing climate change because nothing else can explain it.

UN IPCC = 'Worst case of scientific malpractice in history' says Climate Scientist Dr. Spencer [ Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center where he received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, is currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. ] Spencer Excerpt: I find it astounding that the IPCC has ignored the potential role of natural climate variability in global warming. In any other realm of science we are careful to look for alternative explanations for some phenomenon…but today, mankind is the only allowable reason for climate change. I predict that the IPCC experience will end up being the worst case of scientific malpractice in history.

MIT Climate Scientist Exposes ‘Corrupted Science’ in Devastating Critique - Sep 24, 2008 Excerpt: MIT Meteorology Professor Richard S. Lindzen, confirms how Al Gore and his minions used Stalinist tactics to subvert, suborn and corrupt a whole branch of science, citing chapter and verse in his report entitled “Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?” His answer: A resounding “NO!” Full Lindzen paper here:

Brazilian Meteorologist Scoffs at Notion Mankind impacts climate more than Sun and Oceans - Brazilian meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart Excerpt: So, given that August was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded -- none -- and during which solar winds were at a 50-year low, he was not surprised that Brazilians were suffering (for them) a brutal cold snap. "This is no coincidence," he said as he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate.

UK scientist: ‘Green’ totalitarianism promotes 1984 style tactics - By Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography, University of London. Excerpt: The second tactic has been to try to manufacture, in the style of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1947), an all-encompassing external threat against which there must be perpetual war. The prime example of this is ‘global warming’, which has been likened in gravity to the Great World Wars. Such a perpetual threat demands the downplaying of democracy, the legitimising of ‘Green’ totalitarianism, the destruction of markets, and the establishment of Ministries of Truth.

Skeptical Physicist Freeman Dyson: 'When science gets rich it becomes political' – November 19, 2008

Canadian scientist: ‘Scientific assumptions underlying Kyoto are false!’ - 'A revolution in climate change science' since Kyoto – November 18, 2008 (By Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa) Excerpt: In the eight years since the Kyoto Protocol was first introduced, there has been a revolution in climate change science. What we have learned is that many of the scientific assumptions underlying Kyoto are false. Climate is not naturally constant and global warming is not evidence of human interference,” he insists. “Climate change, including global warming and cooling, is perfectly normal.” Patterson contends that the sun is the reason why the 20th century has experienced some of the hottest temperatures in recent history. “My own research shows that, on all time scales, there is a very good correlation between the Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena, such as changes in the brightness of the sun. The fact that the sun is now brighter than it has been in 8,000 years should have a major impact on climate.” Patterson is not alone in his claims. In fact, a large number of scientists from around the world agree that anthropogenic (human) activity is not the cause of global warming.
 
Al Gore's previous predictions have not exactly worked out.

He claimed that the world would continually, without slowing or reversal, get warmer over the next century.
He claimed that hurricanes would get more numerous and more destructive in 2006, when they've actually become less numerous and less destructive.
He claimed that the arctic ice would all be melted by this year, when it has in fact returned to levels not seen for decades.
He claimed that polar bears were endangered and that their population would be wiped out when it is actually increasing and there are more now than at any point in recorded history.

To begin, I think Al Gore is full of shit and is one of the worst of the fear mongers. Even the other fear mongers shake their heads and question some of his conclusions.

That said, I don't recall him saying it would continue without slowing or reversal periods. I would love to see a link to that if you have it because only an idiot would make such a statement.
 
To begin, I think Al Gore is full of shit and is one of the worst of the fear mongers. Even the other fear mongers shake their heads and question some of his conclusions.

That said, I don't recall him saying it would continue without slowing or reversal periods. I would love to see a link to that if you have it because only an idiot would make such a statement.
What is your vested interest that ya'll provide these stories without regard to the science? I mean, I could give a flying F for what Al Gore has to say, but there is substantial amounts of legitimate peer reviewed science on climactic change and ya'll completely disregard it. Instead you politicise it with out making an honest attempt to even understand the issue or it's consequence. I'm about to put you guys in the same same league as anti-science cranks like Dixie and PiMP and the rest of the flat earther, creationist crowd.

Instead of copying and pasting your political editorials on the subject how about linking us to some peer reviewed science that support the position you are taking. Now I intend that comment more for you SF as I know Topper would site the US Petroleum Institute as his source, which is why no one takes Topper serious on this topic. We know he has a vested commercial interest in the continued use of petroleum and could really care less about what the actual scientific conclusions are.
 
What is your vested interest that ya'll provide these stories without regard to the science? I mean, I could give a flying F for what Al Gore has to say, but there is substantial amounts of legitimate peer reviewed science on climactic change and ya'll completely disregard it. Instead you politicise it with out making an honest attempt to even understand the issue or it's consequence. I'm about to put you guys in the same same league as anti-science cranks like Dixie and PiMP and the rest of the flat earther, creationist crowd.

Instead of copying and pasting your political editorials on the subject how about linking us to some peer reviewed science that support the position you are taking. Now I intend that comment more for you SF as I know Topper would site the US Petroleum Institute as his source, which is why no one takes Topper serious on this topic. We know he has a vested commercial interest in the continued use of petroleum and could really care less about what the actual scientific conclusions are.
Dude, the release of the information from those computers has hurt that particular science more than any I have seen. Many people no longer trust the "peer-review" process when regarding this particular science, mostly because it involved direct threats against the magazines who publish the articles.

Seriously, ignoring what has actually transpired is hurting you. Science doesn't bury crap like that.

If you think people will continue to just believe you without any question because you are a "scientist" and it was "peer-reviewed" after we find they silenced any opposition to their "theory" then you are insane.
 
What is your vested interest that ya'll provide these stories without regard to the science? I mean, I could give a flying F for what Al Gore has to say, but there is substantial amounts of legitimate peer reviewed science on climactic change and ya'll completely disregard it. Instead you politicise it with out making an honest attempt to even understand the issue or it's consequence. I'm about to put you guys in the same same league as anti-science cranks like Dixie and PiMP and the rest of the flat earther, creationist crowd.

WHAT STORY did I provide? I questioned a portion of toppy's post.

As for your 'peer reviewed' crap... that is getting quite old. There are plenty of scientists that disagree with the assertion that man is the primary cause of global warming. Given that organizations like the CRU and NASA are continually fighting FOIA requests to provide the raw data, I think it is YOU who should be questioning these so called 'peer reviewed' articles that are using data they won't share with the public (which is crucial to an ACTUAL review by those who may disagree or wish to check their work).



Instead of copying and pasting your political editorials on the subject how about linking us to some peer reviewed science that support the position you are taking. Now I intend that comment more for you SF as I know Topper would site the US Petroleum Institute as his source, which is why no one takes Topper serious on this topic. We know he has a vested commercial interest in the continued use of petroleum and could really care less about what the actual scientific conclusions are.

PEER REVIEW PEER REVIEW CONSENSUS CONSENSUS... you are such a parrot

Any 'peer-reviewed' article that relies on raw data that is not open for actual review is quite simply... rubbish. Any 'massaged' data whose raw data has been destroyed should most certainly be questioned.

As the recent emails have highlighted, if one group or another grabs control of the publications in which the 'peer-review' process occurs, then dissenting opinions can be extinguished and then the lemmings can run around shouting....

'show me a peer reviewed article'.... blah blah blah.
 
Dude, the release of the information from those computers has hurt that particular science more than any I have seen. Many people no longer trust the "peer-review" process when regarding this particular science, mostly because it involved direct threats against the magazines who publish the articles.

Seriously, ignoring what has actually transpired is hurting you. Science doesn't bury crap like that.

If you think people will continue to just believe you without any question because you are a "scientist" and it was "peer-reviewed" after we find they silenced any opposition to their "theory" then you are insane.
Oh that's a strawman and I never said or even implied that. I asked them to show me the peer reveiwed science that defends their position. The fact that the CRU's credibility has been brought into question doesn't make their position correct. Is it to much to ask "Show me the science"?
 
Oh that's a strawman and I never said or even implied that. I asked them to show me the peer reveiwed science that defends their position. The fact that the CRU's credibility has been brought into question doesn't make their position correct. Is it to much to ask "Show me the science"?
You can't "show me" something they buried unless they tell you where they buried it. That is a weak position to take after you know they silenced the opposition.

Again, if you think that people are going to trust "peer-review" after they find that they were burying information and couldn't actually review information because the data wasn't open, then you really are not very logical. I suggest you wait until we find out why they refuse to open the raw data to allow for an actual review before you start making closed judgment on such things as this newly fledged and apparently largely falsified new science.

We can claim anything we want, so long as the data are hidden. And we don't have the burden of proof, we'd just like actual peer-review of the data and method. It isn't that difficult.
 
Oh that's a strawman and I never said or even implied that. I asked them to show me the peer reveiwed science that defends their position. The fact that the CRU's credibility has been brought into question doesn't make their position correct. Is it to much to ask "Show me the science"?

Tell you what... how about you get the CRU and NASA to release their RAW data. Then we can have some of the 31,000 US Scientists who disagree with the global warming fear mongers actually CHECK the methods used by those who have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar (such as Hansen at NASA and Jones at the CRU)

The fact that you blindly follow those who wish to HIDE THEIR DATA is very telling.
 
Copenhagen climate summit: Al Gore
condemned over Arctic ice melting prediction
Telegraph [UK], by Murray Wardrop

Original Article

Posted By:StormCnter, 12/15/2009 4:19:24 AM

Speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, Mr Gore said new computer modelling suggests there is a 75 per cent chance of the entire polar ice cap melting during the summertime by 2014. However, he faced embarrassment last night after Dr Wieslav Maslowski, the climatologist whose work the prediction was based on, refuted his claims. Dr Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California,
 
WHAT STORY did I provide? I questioned a portion of toppy's post.

As for your 'peer reviewed' crap... that is getting quite old. There are plenty of scientists that disagree with the assertion that man is the primary cause of global warming. Given that organizations like the CRU and NASA are continually fighting FOIA requests to provide the raw data, I think it is YOU who should be questioning these so called 'peer reviewed' articles that are using data they won't share with the public (which is crucial to an ACTUAL review by those who may disagree or wish to check their work).





PEER REVIEW PEER REVIEW CONSENSUS CONSENSUS... you are such a parrot

Any 'peer-reviewed' article that relies on raw data that is not open for actual review is quite simply... rubbish. Any 'massaged' data whose raw data has been destroyed should most certainly be questioned.

As the recent emails have highlighted, if one group or another grabs control of the publications in which the 'peer-review' process occurs, then dissenting opinions can be extinguished and then the lemmings can run around shouting....

'show me a peer reviewed article'.... blah blah blah.
In other words you cannot back up your position with science, just political hackery? What does the CRU's lack of crediblity have to do with your position? You're taking a default position that because the CRU's credibility is brought into doubt that by proxy your position is correct. From a scientific standpoint that's completely laughable.

OK, So the CRU is full of shit. What data do you have to convince me that you are right. The CRU being wrong doesn't make you right.
 
In other words you cannot back up your position with science, just political hackery? What does the CRU's lack of crediblity have to do with your position? You're taking a default position that because the CRU's credibility is brought into doubt that by proxy your position is correct. From a scientific standpoint that's completely laughable.

OK, So the CRU is full of shit. What data do you have to convince me that you are right. The CRU being wrong doesn't make you right.
You can't back up your position with actual peer-reviewed science. Peer-review in every other case than this particular "science" actually releases the data so that methods can be verified. Without the data there can be no actual review of the method involved.

Faith-based science is not very becoming on you Mott. At this point, saying "peer-review" in regards to this particular science is the same thing as saying, "Because we said so!"
 
Tell you what... how about you get the CRU and NASA to release their RAW data. Then we can have some of the 31,000 US Scientists who disagree with the global warming fear mongers actually CHECK the methods used by those who have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar (such as Hansen at NASA and Jones at the CRU)

The fact that you blindly follow those who wish to HIDE THEIR DATA is very telling.
Who's blindly following anyone? Your the one who is expecting me to believe your position is the correct one with out providing me any data. OK, CRU is fucked up. So what have you got? So far you've shown nothing and you're expecting me to blindly follow you? Aint happening son.
 
Who's blindly following anyone? Your the one who is expecting me to believe your position is the correct one with out providing me any data. OK, CRU is fucked up. So what have you got? So far you've shown nothing and you're expecting me to blindly follow you? Aint happening son.
Please. Constant requests for the raw data using FOI laws so that an actual review of the process have been denied. In the released e-mail they even speak of destroying data so that it will never be released.

Where are you coming from? Do you really want nobody to ever trust any form of science? Scientists in every other study should be screaming that these people follow the same method to verify as any other science. The more they defend these crappy methods the less all science will be trusted. I don't like that Mott. I'd prefer scientists demand information and verify methods so that this wouldn't happen. But the more you defend it, the more it appears you just want to circle the wagons.
 
You can't back up your position with actual peer-reviewed science. Peer-review in every other case than this particular "science" actually releases the data so that methods can be verified. Without the data there can be no actual review of the method involved.

Faith-based science is not very becoming on you Mott. At this point, saying "peer-review" in regards to this particular science is the same thing as saying, "Because we said so!"
Again, another strawman Damo. I can't back up my postions because I haven't taken a position. I've just asked to be provided with data from peer reviewed sources that defend their posisitions so that I can evaluate the data and make my own decison about what the data concludes. So far they've giving me nothing other than the conclusion that "Well CRU isn't credible so therefore I am right.". That's a joke.
 
I'm curious about some of the claims in the 1st post. Last I read, polar bear populations are still - for the most part, anyway - on the decline, as is their habitat. I also don't recall Gore claiming that the Arctic ice sheet would be gone by now, or that there would be no slowing or reversal in the trends...
 
Again, another strawman Damo. I can't back up my postions because I haven't taken a position. I've just asked to be provided with data from peer reviewed sources that defend their posisitions so that I can evaluate the data and make my own decison about what the data concludes. So far they've giving me nothing other than the conclusion that "Well CRU isn't credible so therefore I am right.". That's a joke.
This is inane. The point is that the "peer-review" process specifically is now under suspicion because people silenced opposition and refuse to allow review of data and you say, "Well show me peer-review..."

It would be like, "Show me the government approved pro-religious documents in the USSR!" back before the wall fell...
 
Please. Constant requests for the raw data using FOI laws so that an actual review of the process have been denied. In the released e-mail they even speak of destroying data so that it will never be released.

Where are you coming from? Do you really want nobody to ever trust any form of science? Scientists in every other study should be screaming that these people follow the same method to verify as any other science. The more they defend these crappy methods the less all science will be trusted. I don't like that Mott. I'd prefer scientists demand information and verify methods so that this wouldn't happen. But it appears you just want to circle the wagons.
You keep going back to CRU. What does that have to do with the price of fish. I'm not asking anyone to defend CRU, I'm asking them for data to defend their position not data that confirms or refutes CRU's crediblity. I'll even give you that CRU's credibility is severly damaged but what does that have to do with their position opposing anthropogenic climate change. What evidenced and data do they have supporting their position? Discrediting CRU does not substantiate their position. That's not how science works. In science just because you're wrong doesn't mean I'm right. That may work in politics but in Science it may damned well be that both sides are wrong. Show me the data!
 
Good news guys. I have come up with The unifying Theory in Physics. I worked it all out last night. I am not going to show you any of my raw data though. You will just have to take my word for it. And anyone that says otherwise is just a UT denier.
 
I'm curious about some of the claims in the 1st post. Last I read, polar bear populations are still - for the most part, anyway - on the decline, as is their habitat. I also don't recall Gore claiming that the Arctic ice sheet would be gone by now, or that there would be no slowing or reversal in the trends...
Well it seems to me the argument I'm getting is that since CRU lacks crediblity that this proves conclusively that there is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change but by their logic were blindly following Al Gore cause we had the temerity to ask for data to support that claim.
 
Back
Top