Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies....

Post by **thibodeaux** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:03 pm

Suck it, hippies. Suck it long. Suck it hard.

Post by **GORDON** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:23 pm

Goodness. It's almost like people are realizing that there's a Scientific Method, and it has been ignored in the field of "global warming."

But... there is a consensus...

Post by **GORDON** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:43 pm

Federal and global policy is being set on the basis that human activity is changing the climate for the worse.

Al Gore and his ilk are making millions and billions on the basis that human activity is changing the climate for the worse, but people can buy their way out of guilt with "carbon credits."

Now evidence is released that the "consensus" may actually be cooking the books to get false, "scary" climate change data.

This news, with the potential to change national and global policy, is ignored by every single "non-biased," major news source.

Edited By GORDON on 1259109867

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:51 pm

Even the articles online that I've read are all claiming that everything is "taken out of context." Not that I'm exactly shocked that defense has been adopted.

Post by **TheCatt** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:57 pm

Congress is thinking of investigating.

The leak of course, not any potential collusion or coverup.

Post by **GORDON** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:28 pm

Google contributing to the burying of the story.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012721.html

Google covering up Tienanmen Square in China was an isolated circumstance, right?

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:03 pm

GORDON wrote:Google contributing to the burying of the story.

Told you they were evil.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:40 pm

Peer Review! Peer Review! Peer Review!

But the point is that the reviewers were REFUSING to review opposing papers, and scheming to ostracize any authors or journals who published opposing papers.

That's not science.

Post by **GORDON** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:31 pm

I think there's just way too much money at stake for this to be exposed as politics/religion.

Our money, btw.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:45 pm

It's really odd how he keeps saying "peer review, key words." Almost as if he's repeating talking points. He also insists that ONLY people who have a PhD in "climate science" are qualified to assess this scandal.

Dear Ed Begley:

I have a PhD in electrical engineering. Part of the requirement for this degree is, indeed, peer review of your dissertation by a committee of faculty in your discipline. HOWEVER, it is in many institutions a requirement that this committee contain at least one member from OUTSIDE your discipline.

Why do you suppose that might be?

Post by **Cakedaddy** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:16 am

Much like someone who has a PhD in Physics, you would be useless. Ed says so.

Post by **TPRJones** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:45 am

If all you have is a PhD in Hammering, everything looks like a nail.

Peer review is not perfect. Peer review used to insist pretty vehemently that the world was flat and the sun orbited the earth.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:33 am

More on peer-review

Recent revelations that the peer review system in climatology might have been compromised by the biases of corrupt reviewers miss a much bigger problem.

Most climatology papers submitted for peer review rely on large, complex and custom-written computer programs to produce their findings. The code for these programs is never provided to peer reviewers and even if it was, the peer climatologists doing the reviewing lack the time, resources and expertise to verify that the software works as its creators claim.

That's something else I'd like to ask Mr. Begley: I write software for a living. Am I qualified to comment on the software these hucksters used?

Edited By thibodeaux on 1259599003

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:57 am

thibodeaux wrote:That's something else I'd like to ask Mr. Begley: I write software for a living. Am I qualified to comment on the software these hucksters used?

I'd love to get a look at the sims they use. From everything I've heard, they're flawed in a couple big ways.

Post by **GORDON** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:59 pm

Random guy* mentions the hacked emails.

http://online.wsj.com/article....00.html

What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe? The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree.

The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.

Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well.

Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example.

* = Professor of meteorology at MIT

Post by **thibodeaux** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:36 pm

I'm gonna keep beatin' this horse:

The public (or media) have an incorrect impression of 'peer review'. I've served on a number of conference program committees, albeit in different domains, and done reviews for journals as well, so I feel qualified to say: 'Peer review' is an initial screening of submissions to see if they are fit to enter the conversation. You're looking for things such as citation of the relevant literature and knowledge of prior art, significance of the result, (non)repetition of previous work, a minimal level of readability, and making sure that the submission is not completely in left field (e.g., in computer science claiming to have solved a known NP-complete problem, without an exhaustive demonstration). No one expects a reviewer to attempt to duplicate the described results. Peer review does not validate the submission. Attempting to confirm, rebut, or refine a paper is another project, worthy of another publication - that's how the conversation proceeds. Attempting to prop up the validity of any model by calling it 'peer reviewed' is dishonest, particularly when the peer review process is corrupted into a stone wall against the unorthodox.

Indeed, I have also done "peer review." True, it was for a conference, and the standards for conferences are lower than for a journal. But yeah, basically how it worked was a bunch of us grad students were given some papers and some feedback questionnaires, and told to review the papers. Oh, and get it done by next week, on top of your regular work.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:39 pm

Good Godawmighty:

Doctors should give patients advice on climate change, a leading body of medical experts has claimed.
...
The Climate and Health Council, a collaboration of worldwide health organisations including the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal Society of Medicine, believes there is a direct link between climate change and better health.
...
They believe that offering patients advice on how to lower their carbon footprint can be just as easy and achievable as helping them to stop smoking or eat a healthier diet.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:13 pm

You've lost, hippies.

Post by **Vince** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:33 pm

Malcolm wrote:
GORDON wrote:Google contributing to the burying of the story.
Told you they were evil.

I've been saying that too.

Post by **Leisher** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:57 am

I've been saying that too.

Ditto. I was even recently criticized for my feelings on Google by someone here in another thread.

Edited By Leisher on 1259852299