Im not a scientist but have enough common sense to put 2 and 2 together.
UN (made up of mostly poor nations in comparison) creates IPCC to investigate climate change.
Way to fix climate change is to put a strangle hold on western countries, and send billions of dollars to the poor countries.
An added bonus is the loss of economic and personal freedom while adding a whole new realm the governments of the world have absolute control over.
Create a theory that no matter what happens you are right. One of the snowiest winters in US history this year, and just explain it away as “we told you extreme weather was a symptom of global warming!” If it gets hotter its “we told you so!” Colder? “We told you so!” We could go into another mini-ice age, and the IPCC along with the legions of believers will say its because of global warming.
Then the suppression of evidence, making up of evidence, and refusal to be “transparent” in their conclusions is good, too.
Absolutely fair. My fiance has a BS in Ecology, my mother is a published scientist and a college level professor, my father is a computer scientist with a Bachelors degree in Biology, and a Masters in Computer Science, and one of my sisters is a research scientist at Harvard Medical and one of the top ten researchers globally in her field. Not to mention the uncle I have that is a environmental engineer working with Coal Mines, and the other scientists and doctors in my family. I should have stated that, combined with the fact that I understood the Scientific Method before middle school, and have been working alongside the fields of research science my entire life. My apologies.
To address this thread as a whole, i love the fact that there is work out there trying to provide contradictory evidence about climate change. When I see an apples to apples comparison that is backed up and peer reviewed I will eat crow.
But the reality of science is pretty simple. If you have years of scientific data that supports the theory that an apple is an apple, just because someone with a PHD in biology comes along and says: An Apple is actually an Orange, does not make an apple an orange! Furthermore if the original person that helped gather evidence that apples were apples just randomly said apples are oranges in a public forum this doesn’t automatically disprove the data. Nor would a few emails he wrote. Get it?
The sad thing about the counter argument to climate changes is that the meat and potatoes of the arguments against the theory end at about this level of scientific complexity. The reason the arguments aren’t being published in research journals HeavyMetal is not because there is a grand tinfoil hat conspiracy against these people and their data, it’s because the research and data are FLAWED. I figured someone within the field of science would be able to wrap their head around that.
Back to the original topic I find it amusing that both the Pentagon and Big Oil are both looking into creating survival models for climate change. Seems to suggest something.
edited to add: don’t trust me about the “big oil statement” simply because I said it. Rather take the fact that that father I was telling you about, yea he’s worked in the industry since before I was born, and is currently in a leadership roll with one of the biggest three oil giants on the planet. I have these conversations with him a lot as well.
As I would think it should be for a true scientist. Why then does Al Gore, the AGW spokesman, say the debate is over? I thought true science encouraged new evidence to further confirm or change porposed theories.
I don’t know one way or the other because I don’t read such research journals…do the journals explain the flaws in the skeptic views or simply choose not to ever publish or address them?
First I’m not talking about Al Gore. He’s a good example of the problems I have with both sides using the general publics mis-understanding of science, to manipulate opinion.
Second, yea the scientists that attempted to publish would get responses to their papers, you should be asking them where those responses are and what they say.
Peer reviewed global warming studies? Or buddy system?
November 27th, 2009, 2:05 pm · 8 Comments · posted by Mark Landsbaum
One of the most damning of the e-mails to emerge from Climategate has been this one from Phil Jones of the UK’s Climate Research Unit talking about scientific papers he didn’t like (emphasis ours):
“The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
We’ve been told – actually shouted at – that “peer review” is sacroscant and the way the scientific community polices itself. You can’t get the stamp of approval unless “peers” “review” your work and it passes muster.
But how’s that work in practice? Apparently, not so well. “Peer review” appears to be more like buddies who know the secret handshake. Everybody on the same team gets a pass. Others, need not apply.
Here are some fascinating comments posted at Center for Environmental Journalism:
•See Roger Pielke, Jr.’s post about peer review. He provides an illuminating analysis of how peer review seems to have become politicized. He refers to this excellent NPR story quoting a number of scientists, including James Hansen who says peer review has even thwarted his work — because his opinion that the consensus view on global warming understates the risks is not popular.
•The NPR story also quotes John Christy who believes his research about Southern Sierra snowfall has been blocked by peer review; Phillip Mote, who responds that 10 papers showing the same thing have already been published (so Christy’s work is “not news”); and Judith Curry, who recommends that peer review be open and public rather than a semi-secret process subject to undue influence by scientists with an agenda.
•“You do need gates, but when you’ve spiked the gatekeepers to keep other people out and protect certain insiders, then the gate isn’t working,” NPR quotes Curry as saying.
As with all de facto cliques, these things tend to become self-promoting, self-protecting and ultimately self-deceiving. How about a little sunshine, hm? How about CRU open its work up entirely for the entire scientific (and journalistic) community to peruse?
After all, if the stuff is good enough to warrant transforming trillions of dollars of economic reality, it ought to withstand the light of day, no?
Tell me dmcmanus, are you familiar with the first law of holes?
FWIW the latest issue of Proceedings (USNI) contained a piece about the Navy’s move into “hybrid” propulsion technology. Mainly to save gas, though, IIRC.
If the military is looking at moving off oil because it would reduce our reliance on oil and safeguard its budget against vast fluctuations due to changing oil prices, that is a good reason. Oil’s availability certainly plays a role in our effectiveness as a military.
What we don’t need is a military that is concerned with global warming, diverting its attention from the wars we’re currently fighting. Refocusing these “climate change” investigation resources towards keeping our guys alive and making more of their guys dead seems prudent from where I sit.
IIRC that was the gist of the bit from USNI. I think they noted that LHD-8 Makin Island ( A Wasp-class large deck 'phib) shaved $2 million in fuel costs for 1 year. Not too shabby, assuming that the technology was not very expensive on the front end.
You are a 2-month lurker with 2 posts, and this is what you use to launch here…? There have been any number of threads here dealing with this subject. IMO, the least well informed among us tend to be on the pro-AGW side of the issue.
There has been a landslide of news that undermines the credibility of many (if not most) of the “individuals who know what they are talking about” in recent months. ZDL linked to one of many pieces that document this. Certainly you are aware of these developments. Right?
The point apparently being is you are far behind the power curve and simply don’t know what you don’t know.
Perhaps you should listen to those who do have a clue. I gave you a link to many of them. How about listening to one of your own in the above quote, Phil Jones, for starters?
Don’t you think that an open mind is better than a cheap, hollow appeal to authority logcal fallacy?
