Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:22 pm

It seems US Senator James Inhofe, OK (R), has asked for a DOJ investigation into the GW crowd, including former VP AlGore and the EPA. He also wants his US Senate Committee to question Gore and the EPA, as well as look into the use of US funds used into GW research, for possible criminal conduct (no one is accusing the former VP of any criminal activity).

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climate...diapjtv-exclusive/?singlepage=true
 
Klaus
Posts: 21538
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:32 pm

If this triggers a proper judicial investigation of the actual scientific basis of climate research, that could be a very good thing.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:45 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
If this triggers a proper judicial investigation of the actual scientific basis of climate research, that could be a very good thing.

I wonder if being unable to understand simple stats or Archimedes principle will prove to be indictable offenses?   

Let me see, is 14.65 bigger or smaller than 14.38? I forget!!!   
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:52 pm

It seems to me the investigation will be centered around if the funding was used in a fully open way, and also used to verify or dispute opposing views of man made GW. It also seems to be centered around, in the US anyway, if FOIA requests were honored, or not.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:15 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
It seems to me the investigation will be centered around if the funding was used in a fully open way, and also used to verify or dispute opposing views of man made GW. It also seems to be centered around, in the US anyway, if FOIA requests were honored, or not.

Never mind the FOI, with all the data that IS in the public domain, how is it there are no alternative interpretations of the data that are documented in the manner that the relevant section of the IPCC report is documented.

The data is all out there for anyone to interpret.

However, it is simply a joke to believe that 14.65 (the mean global T for 2001 to 2009) is smaller than 14.38 (the mean global T for 1991 to 2000).

Whatever faults there might be with the presentation of the climatologists, they pale beside the gross errors in the assertions of those disputing their findings.

One of the most infamous of books related to the argument, that by Ian Plimer, is positively embarrassing in relation to the way it treats facts.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21538
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:36 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
It seems to me the investigation will be centered around if the funding was used in a fully open way, and also used to verify or dispute opposing views of man made GW. It also seems to be centered around, in the US anyway, if FOIA requests were honored, or not.

Will the well-documented attempts by various petrol corporations to manipulate and distort the scientific record also be investigated, or is this a strictly partisan affair?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:57 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 4):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
It seems to me the investigation will be centered around if the funding was used in a fully open way, and also used to verify or dispute opposing views of man made GW. It also seems to be centered around, in the US anyway, if FOIA requests were honored, or not.

Never mind the FOI, with all the data that IS in the public domain, how is it there are no alternative interpretations of the data that are documented in the manner that the relevant section of the IPCC report is documented.

The data is all out there for anyone to interpret.

Actually, the data is not out there. Many "scientists" in the UK and US have refused FOIA requests, and refused to provide information on how they collected data and arrived at their conclusions. Some information has been reviewed and released through FOIA, that is how we found out the glaciers in the Hymalayas will not be gone in 2035. We are also find other "invented" or "twisted" data used by the IPCC. Of course, without the exposed e-mails from the UK, none of this would have ever come out. Now, here in the US, there are many FOIA requests for e-mals at Penn State, and other universities and GW research centers like NASA, EPA, and others.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 5):
Will the well-documented attempts by various petrol corporations to manipulate and distort the scientific record also be investigated, or is this a strictly partisan affair?

Those cannot be gotten by FOIA, as they are private or publicly own companies, but that information can be sopinaed.

Well, spell check isn't working, again.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:52 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Those cannot be gotten by FOIA, as they are private or publicly own companies, but that information can be sopinaed.

Well, spell check isn't working, again.

If that was meant to be subpoenaed I rather doubt if Check Spelling would have worked. I gave up using spell check after I lost my job with the Wizard of Id for not believing that global cooling had occurred in the past decade.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Actually, the data is not out there. Many "scientists" in the UK and US have refused FOIA requests, and refused to provide information on how they collected data and arrived at their conclusions.

Yes the data are all out there. What actually got them irritated was folk asking for specifics of data handling so that tedious and nit picking objections could be raised at every stage.

And you can hardly blame them when it is still being argued that

Quoting Baroque (Reply 4):
14.65 (the mean global T for 2001 to 2009) is smaller than 14.38 (the mean global T for 1991 to 2000).

I mean can you blame them?

In fact they have also recalculated the data without the eliminations and station moves that they did, and the results are more warming that with the "manipulated" data.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Some information has been reviewed and released through FOIA, that is how we found out the glaciers in the Hymalayas will not be gone in 2035.

That is not how the mistake was found.

The source for this information was "An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China", a 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund. The WWF report was not peer reviewed. On Page 25, we find:
A report which was always in the public domain and should never ever have been used.

Meanwhile the gliaciers of the Himalayas are still retreating.
Wiki
In the Wakhan Corridor of Afghanistan 28 of 30 glaciers examined retreated significantly during the 1976-2003 period, the average retreat was 11 meters per year (Haritashya). One of these glaciers the Zemestan Glacier has retreated 460 m during this period, not quite 10% of its 5.2 km length.(Pelto7) In examining 612 glaciers in China between 1950 and 1970, 53% of the glaciers studied were retreating. After 1990, 95% of these glaciers were measured to be retreating, indicating that retreat of these glaciers was becoming more widespread.(Rai, Guring, et alia) Glaciers in the Mount Everest region of the Himalayas are all in a state of retreat. The Rongbuk Glacier, draining the north side of Mount Everest into Tibet, has been retreating 20 m (66 ft) per year. In the Khumbu region of Nepal along the front of the main Himalaya of 15 glaciers examined from 1976-2007 all retreated significantly, average retreat was 28 m per year (Bajracjarya). The most famous of these Khumbu Glacier retreated at a rate of 18 m per year from 1976-2007(Bajracjarya). In India the Gangotri Glacier, retreated 34 m (110 ft) per year between 1970 and 1996, and has averaged a loss of 30 m (98 ft) per year since 2000. However, the glacier is still over 30 km (19 mi) long. In 2005 the Tehri Dam was finished on the Bhagirathi River, it is a 2400 mw facility that began producing hydropower in 2006. The headwaters of the Bhagirathi River is the Gangotri and Khatling Glacier, Garhwal Himalaya. Gangotri Glacier has retreated 1 km in the last 30 years, and with an area of 286 km2 provides up to 190 m3/second (Singh et. al., 2006). For the Indian Himalaya retreat ranged from -19 meters per year for 17 glaciers all retreating (Haritashya2). In Sikkim all 21 glaciers examined were retreating at an average rate of 20 m per year (Raina). For the 51 glaciers in the main Himalayan Range of India, Nepal and Sikkim all 51 are retreating, at an average rate of 23 m per year. In the Karokoram Range of the Himalaya there is a mix of advancing and retreating glaciers with 18 advancing and 22 retreating during the 1980-2003 period. Many of the advancing Karokoram glaciers are surging. (Haritashya2)

Now you use that error to hide a major glacial retreat. Before you get excited about the surging glaciers in the Karakoram, this can mean that the base of the glacier has melted and may preface major loss of ice.

You are traducing the record KC. FOI is not the problem. Being unable to produce different results is the problem. Eventually even the sceptic will be so bowed down by the statisitics that their backs will break.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am

Wow, are they going to do a DOJ inquiry into the law of gravity as well? How about the alphabet? Prime numbers? The government may have opinions and/or objections; to what effect?
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21781
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:02 am

If someone makes a small fudge and miscalculates the diameter of the Earth by a bit, it doesn't mean that the world is flat.

Go ahead. Investigate it. It's about damned time.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:19 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
It seems US Senator James Inhofe, OK (R), has asked for a DOJ investigation into the GW crowd

If Inhofe wants an investigation into the matter, he can pay for it. Otherwise, this is just a waste of time, IMO. We have bigger fish to fry at the moment.

Everyone knows Gore and his GW theories was only done so that he can rake in the            
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
User avatar
OA412
Moderator
Posts: 4744
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:24 am

Talk about a right-wing propaganda website.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 4):
However, it is simply a joke to believe that 14.65 (the mean global T for 2001 to 2009) is smaller than 14.38 (the mean global T for 1991 to 2000).

When has the anti-global warming crowd ever let facts get in their way?
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4780
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:33 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 4):
However, it is simply a joke to believe that 14.65 (the mean global T for 2001 to 2009) is smaller than 14.38 (the mean global T for 1991 to 2000).

And that proves man has had an impact on global warming exactly how? I am not saying it doesn't, but if that is your only argument then it is a rather weak one - everybody knows that climate, to put it simply, changes. We have had glacial ages in the recent past that melted without any human intervention. As a scientist, you should know that two datapoints (average temperatures in two contiguous decades) does not a theory make.

That is why the expression "climate change" is a stupid one. Of course the climate changes, it has always done so. Just based on the rate of precession of the Earth´s axis, every 13.000 years summer should switch places with winter. What we really should be talking about is "man-made impact on climate change" (although I admit IPMMICC does not have the same ring to it as IPCC).
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:01 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 7):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 4):
14.65 (the mean global T for 2001 to 2009) is smaller than 14.38 (the mean global T for 1991 to 2000).

I mean can you blame them?

In fact they have also recalculated the data without the eliminations and station moves that they did, and the results are more warming that with the "manipulated" data.

It would be one thing to average every weather station on the Earth, but as far as I know that has never been done. Even if it was, there would still be huge gaps as there are not many weather stations in the middle of oceans, the Amazon, the Himalayas, and other very large areas of the world. Much of the data has been 'manipulated data' by these scientists to further their own personal agenda. While I don't question your calculations on the glabal mean temps. of .27 degrees C for the decade from 2001-2009, how does that translate into confirmation the increase is man-made? It doesn't. The temps of Earth are not, nor ever have been static. The 'little ice age' ended a mere 250 years ago, or so, that is only a sanpshot in the global time line. Don't forget, the last 'snowball Earth" ended some 600M years ago and was followed by a global warming period that brought in the dinosaurs, as well as a majority of the rest of the life forms currently on the Earth.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 7):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Some information has been reviewed and released through FOIA, that is how we found out the glaciers in the Hymalayas will not be gone in 2035.

That is not how the mistake was found.

The source for this information was "An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China", a 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund. The WWF report was not peer reviewed. On Page 25, we find:
A report which was always in the public domain and should never ever have been used.

The real question is how did such a report by the WWF get into the IPCC report without being subjected to confirmation to begin with? This is more than 'simple' sloppy work by the UN, it clearly shows the UN has an agenda for getting money, and they will do what ever it takes to achieve that goal, including lying.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 10):
Everyone knows Gore and his GW theories was only done so that he can rake in the
Quoting OA412 (Reply 11):
When has the anti-global warming crowd ever let facts get in their way?


They don't, the real question is when will the hoaxers use real facts that are beyond dispute?
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:37 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):

They don't, the real question is when will the hoaxers use real facts that are beyond dispute?

Frankly repeating this canard again and again neither makes it true nor acceptable as a debating technique.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 4):
However, it is simply a joke to believe that 14.65 (the mean global T for 2001 to 2009) is smaller than 14.38 (the mean global T for 1991 to 2000).

And that proves man has had an impact on global warming exactly how? I am not saying it doesn't, but if that is your only argument then it is a rather weak one - everybody knows that climate, to put it simply, changes. We have had glacial ages in the recent past that melted without any human intervention. As a scientist, you should know that two datapoints (average temperatures in two contiguous decades) does not a theory make.

It does, however, demonstrate that for "as representative as possible a range of stations" the nine years from 2001-2009 were on average hotter than the decade 1991-2000. The deniers keep repeating the untruth that the earth has been cooling since 1998.

Those two numbers tell you this has not been the case.

Why the earth was hotter is another matter.

However, one might observe that this result is broadly in accord with the cause being increassed concentration of carbon dioxide and rather pulls the rug from under the "we will be cooling due to lower solar output" theory.

No correlation ever demonstrates causality.

However, predicting cooling and finding HEATING demonstrates that if solar output IS declining that has NOT been the controlling factor over the past two decade.

So it is not a matter of demonstrating a cause but rather one of demonstrating that a supposed contrary effect has not taken place. Ergo the theory that pushed that other cause is stuffed, shafted, gesunk, rusak, putus.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22028
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:50 pm

Why is Sen. Inhofe pushing for this investigation? I don't understand. I read the link provided by the OP and something in that article struck me as odd:

"Inhofe will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant."

What is business/factory is Inhofe trying to get in Oklahoma?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:23 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 14):
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 4):
However, it is simply a joke to believe that 14.65 (the mean global T for 2001 to 2009) is smaller than 14.38 (the mean global T for 1991 to 2000).

And that proves man has had an impact on global warming exactly how? I am not saying it doesn't, but if that is your only argument then it is a rather weak one - everybody knows that climate, to put it simply, changes. We have had glacial ages in the recent past that melted without any human intervention. As a scientist, you should know that two datapoints (average temperatures in two contiguous decades) does not a theory make.

It does, however, demonstrate that for "as representative as possible a range of stations" the nine years from 2001-2009 were on average hotter than the decade 1991-2000. The deniers keep repeating the untruth that the earth has been cooling since 1998.
Quoting Baroque (Reply 14):
Those two numbers tell you this has not been the case.

No it does not say that at all. Are you saying that 1998 could not have been the hottest year on record if the following decade is collectively warmer? Your numbers for the decade for 1991-2000 and your numbers for 2001-2009 are average numbers for each decade, but do not mean either decade could or could not have had a one year spike.

I know we have no way of knowing yet, but the average temps for 2010-2019 could be warmer, or even cooler than the previous two decades, and it will be just as meaningless.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 14):
However, predicting cooling and finding HEATING demonstrates that if solar output IS declining that has NOT been the controlling factor over the past two decade.

Now, I agree with you on that. Solar is but one factor in considering the Earth's climate, just as CO2 is but one factor. We both agree the climate is a complicated thing to evaluate, and I think wer do not know all possible factors that make up the total clomate picture. We know it has been warmer than now and cooler than now in the past, but we don't know all the trigger mechanisims that cause those changes. Do we know some of the causes? Yes sir, we do. Do we know all of the causes? No sir, we don't. Will we know more in say 100 years than we know today? Most likely.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 15):
Why is Sen. Inhofe pushing for this investigation? I don't understand. I read the link provided by the OP and something in that article struck me as odd:

"Inhofe will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant."

Because the EPA is saying that CO2 is pollutent and it is caused by man. Except that CO2 is a natueral gas that is caused by man made activity as well as natueral sources. One of the biggest man made causes of CO2 is simple breathing of humans and every other mamal on Earth. We all breath in O2, and other gases and exhale CO2, and other gases. We fart CO2 (and methan, another 'green house gas'), and it does come from cars and industry. But it also comes from cows and volcanos and forest fires caused by lightening. Most plants inhale CO2 and exhale O2.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22028
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:33 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Because the EPA is saying that CO2 is pollutent and it is caused by man. Except that CO2 is a natueral gas that is caused by man made activity as well as natueral sources.

I know all that. Cows, I have heard, are one of the largest sources of naturally occuring methane in the world. I get that. But, what about man-made CO2? How much as that gone up since the Industrial Revolution? If these laws are repealed, what advantage would that give Inhofe? It would allow more manufacturing and power plants to be opened in the United States, for sure. But, why specifically Inhofe? Why right now?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:47 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 14):
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 4):
However, it is simply a joke to believe that 14.65 (the mean global T for 2001 to 2009) is smaller than 14.38 (the mean global T for 1991 to 2000).

And that proves man has had an impact on global warming exactly how? I am not saying it doesn't, but if that is your only argument then it is a rather weak one - everybody knows that climate, to put it simply, changes. We have had glacial ages in the recent past that melted without any human intervention. As a scientist, you should know that two datapoints (average temperatures in two contiguous decades) does not a theory make.

It does, however, demonstrate that for "as representative as possible a range of stations" the nine years from 2001-2009 were on average hotter than the decade 1991-2000. The deniers keep repeating the untruth that the earth has been cooling since 1998.
Quoting Baroque (Reply 14):
Those two numbers tell you this has not been the case.

No it does not say that at all. Are you saying that 1998 could not have been the hottest year on record if the following decade is collectively warmer? Your numbers for the decade for 1991-2000 and your numbers for 2001-2009 are average numbers for each decade, but do not mean either decade could or could not have had a one year spike.

Sigh - yet again., To get the temp, divide the delta by 100 and add it to 14.00 C.
Year........... Delta
1981......... 39.83
1982......... 8.00
1983......... 33.83
1984......... 14.83
1985......... 11.75
1986......... 19.25
1987......... 34.50
1988......... 41.75
1989......... 28.00
1990......... 48.25
1991......... 44.25
1992......... 15.17
1993......... 18.67
1994......... 31.42
1995......... 45.00
1996......... 36.17
1997......... 39.92
1998......... 70.00
1999......... 43.50
2000......... 39.92

Year
2001......... 55.25
2002......... 67.33
2003......... 65.75
2004......... 59.25
2005......... 76.75
2006......... 63.67
2007......... 71.75
2008......... 53.92
2009......... 71.42

1998 was hot, but 2005, 2007 and 2009 were hotter.

Aside from 1998, no year from 1984 to 2000 was hotter than ANY year after 2000. And three years after 2000 were hotter than 1998. A one year spike is not climate, it is a hot year. But by the time you get out to a decade, you are starting to head for climate.

But that was NOT the point. The point was the story about cooling since 1998 is simply not true. It is a lie, IT is a hoax. So far. I don't know what this year will bring, nor even next year. But at this time, cooling since 1998 is not true.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:27 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
To get the temp, divide the delta by 100 and add it to 14.00 C.

Why wouldn't you just add all of the global temps together, then devide it by the number of weather stations each day of the year, then do the same for the entire year and get an avarage that way? It will work with either "F" or "C".

But thanks, what is the "delta"?
 
JBirdAV8r
Posts: 3461
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:44 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:55 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
But thanks, what is the "delta"?

Delta=change, difference
I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
 
sw733
Posts: 5881
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:20 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 5):
Will the well-documented attempts by various petrol corporations to manipulate and distort the scientific record also be investigated, or is this a strictly partisan affair?

About as partisan as all the calls from Dems to investigate George W. Bush.

i.e. - quite partisan.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10023
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:06 pm

Senator Inhofe is the Senator that rushed to the new room after the Oklahoma City Bombing to say he had been advised that some "dark skinned men" were seen running from the building before the bomb went off.

He is a nice guy, works hard for the state and his constituents, but is not one of the Senators that the country looks towards for insight and leadership.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:28 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
If this triggers a proper judicial investigation of the actual scientific basis of climate research, that could be a very good thing.

Yes, although how badly has the DOJ been contaminated? I would call on the expertise of some good procedural auditors as well and go over a ground-up re-analysis - i.e. throw out all previous analysis and start from scratch.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 7):
In fact they have also recalculated the data without the eliminations and station moves that they did, and the results are more warming that with the "manipulated" data.

The problem is that so few temperature stations are reliable.



This one is a good one.



All sorts of problems around this station.

650 people went out to conduct examinations of temperature gathering equipment, and found that 90% of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration temperature gathering stations do not meet NOAA's own standards.



An interesting read: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:19 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
To get the temp, divide the delta by 100 and add it to 14.00 C.

Why wouldn't you just add all of the global temps together, then devide it by the number of weather stations each day of the year, then do the same for the entire year and get an avarage that way? It will work with either "F" or "C".

But thanks, what is the "delta"?

Yes you would. You would integrate each stations measurements and over the week and over the year, and then you would average all the stations. The matrix I took the data from has U columns and 147 rows (you can deduct a few for spacing).

The delta bit is to be able to write 23 instead of 14.23. It is commonly done in stats, take some datum that lies within the range.

Here is a bit of the averaged matrix


Year........Jan........Feb........Mar........Apr........May........Jun........Jul
1880........28..........6........-10....... .-15........-14........-48........-15
1881........-49........-1........-10....... .12........25........-85........-3
1882........82.........46........29........ . -31........-4........-60........-52
1883........-12........-53........-1...... ..18........0........58........20
1884........-15........12........-23.........-70........-71........-41........-53

I used the month data to be able to get useful SD data.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
650 people went out to conduct examinations of temperature gathering equipment, and found that 90% of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration temperature gathering stations do not meet NOAA's own standards.

So go and do better, or quit complaining. That is a standard GOP response is it not. Science is in your hands, go do it NOW.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
All sorts of problems around this station.

"ALL" sorts, now who is exaggerating. So nuclear bombs exploding are just one of the problems in Marysville.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):

The problem is that so few temperature stations are reliable.

Obviously inadequate support from government to get better records. We can always do better given the right support you know.

Where are the alternative analyses showing no change, or cooling or whatever, unless someone gets off their backsides and shows a better set of data than NOAA manages, then you have no case. Just another person complaining with no positive suggestions.

And don't tell me climate has been changing through geological time. I know that. A history of change does not prove (or disprove) that current patterns are USUAL. That is a step further, that none of the deniers seem able to take without committing egregious statistical untruths.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:17 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 24):
Where are the alternative analyses showing no change, or cooling or whatever, unless someone gets off their backsides and shows a better set of data than NOAA manages, then you have no case. Just another person complaining with no positive suggestions

Wow - show that a majority of temperature stations are unreliable and all you can say is "that's all we got so we use them". That's just lazy.

How about gathering data ONLY from stations with a CRN rating of 1 and seeing what they say? We're paying for the data anyway.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 24):
Obviously inadequate support from government to get better records. We can always do better given the right support you know.

They have all the support they need. But being a government entity, they suffer from typical incompetence.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:23 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):
How about gathering data ONLY from stations with a CRN rating of 1 and seeing what they say? We're paying for the data anyway.

Off you go and do it. NOW!!!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 24):
Obviously inadequate support from government to get better records. We can always do better given the right support you know.

They have all the support they need. But being a government entity, they suffer from typical incompetence.

There you go, now you have absolutely no excuse.

PS when finished with this small task would you also like to design us a better fusion bomb too.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:42 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 26):
Off you go and do it. NOW!!

You're hilarious. It's been done. Just ignore the data from the 97% of stations that are improperly situated. The data is out there, but we need to be able to selectively download them.

Are you nervous?
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:25 pm

Just before you start, to make sure your data are better, you might like to read

http://www.cio.noaa.gov/Policy_Programs/IQ_Guidelines_110606.html

Objectivity ensures that information is accurate, reliable, and unbiased, and that information products are presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner. In a scientific, financial, or statistical context, the original and supporting data are generated, and the analytic results are developed, using commonly accepted scientific, financial, and statistical methods.

Accuracy. Because NOAA deals largely in scientific information, that information reflects the inherent uncertainty of the scientific process. The concept of statistical variation is inseparable from every phase of the scientific process, from instrumentation to final analysis. Therefore, in assessing information for accuracy, the information is considered accurate if it is within an acceptable degree of imprecision or error appropriate to the particular kind of information at issue and otherwise meets commonly accepted scientific, financial, and statistical standards, as applicable. This concept is inherent in the definition of "reproducibility" as used in the OMB Guidelines and adopted by NOAA. Therefore, original and supporting data that are within an acceptable degree of imprecision, or an analytic result that is within an acceptable degree of imprecision or error, are by definition within the agency standard and are therefore considered correct.

Influential Information. As noted in the Definitions above, influential information is information the agency reasonably can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.

A clear and substantial impact is one that has a high probability of occurring. If it is merely arguable or a judgment call, then it would probably not be clear and substantial. The impact must be on a policy or decision that is in fact expected to occur, and there must be a link between the information and the impact that is expected to occur.

Without regard to whether information is influential, NOAA strives for the highest level of transparency about data and methods for all categories of information in all its scientific activities, within ethical, feasibility, cost, and confidentiality constraints. This supports the development of consistently superior products and fosters better value to the public. It also facilitates the reproducibility of such information by qualified third parties.

Peer Review of Influential Scientific Information. "Influential scientific information" or "highly influential scientific assessments" that the agency intends to disseminate are subject to OMB's Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (OMB Peer Review Bulletin), issued December 16, 2004 (70 FR 2664, Jan. 14, 2005). Peer review of these information products will be conducted in accordance with that Bulletin. While the Peer Review Bulletin does not cover third party information directly, its requirements apply to such information under certain circumstances. If the agency plans to disseminate information supplied by a third party, the OMB Peer Review Bulletin should be checked for applicability. In selecting peer reviewers who are not government employees, NOAA has adapted the National Academy of Sciences policy for committee selection with respect to evaluating the potential for conflicts and will use the adapted policy (NOAA Conflict of Interest Policy).


And more.
 
windy95
Posts: 2776
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:39 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 27):
You're hilarious. It's been done. Just ignore the data from the 97% of stations that are improperly situated. The data is out there, but we need to be able to selectively download them.



More on selective stations

"On Jan. 29, they released a startling study showing that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate-measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures drove up the average measured temperature. The stations eliminated were in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea and more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...erature-data/?feat=home_editorials

Selective use of Urban vs Rural has caused all recorded warming.

Adjusted vs Raw data by



. " The values in the table (above)show that the NCDC’s rate of increase of temperature, 0.69C/century, is based on an over-selection of stations with urban locations."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/..._pending_american_temperature.html
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:24 pm

Quoting windy95 (Reply 30):
More on selective stations

"On Jan. 29, they released a startling study showing that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate-measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures drove up the average measured temperature. The stations eliminated were in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea and more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500"

That will have an impact on the "scientific data" collected so it will only show the desired effect.

It is interesting that on windy95's chart, when temps started going down (1960s to the 1990s), the number of stations the data was collected from declind to artificially show the "warming trend". The current "warming trend" somehow began between the years of 1981 and 1991. This "spike" since the mid 1980s is bigger than the 2 degree C "spike" between about 1871 and 1881. That is the "spike" that ended the "little ice age".
 
 
windy95
Posts: 2776
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:33 pm

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/fsu-ace_vs_giss-oceantemp4.png

Global Warming = more hurricanes | Still not happening

WMO: “. . . we cannot at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic signals in past tropical cyclone data.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/2...als-in-past-tropical-cyclone-data/
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:54 pm

Quoting windy95 (Reply 32):
windy95

Thanks for this chart, so the overall temp trend over the last 10,000 years is global cooling?

So much for a 10 or 20 year trend?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 33):
windy95

More useful charts.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:29 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
Thanks for this chart, so the overall temp trend over the last 10,000 years is global cooling?

So much for a 10 or 20 year trend?

That's because the Earth was recovering from when all the original humans burned up the world the first time.  
 
User avatar
speedygonzales
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:01 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:14 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):

The only problem with that old and thoroughly debunked strawman, is that the "bad" stations actually show less warming:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

Apparently Watts doesn't know the difference between absolute temperature and temperature anomalies. The "bad" stations may very well show higher absolute temperature than the "good", but there is very little difference in the trend.
Ignorance kills. :tombstone:
 
windy95
Posts: 2776
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Raw Data




Massaged, adjusted, scammed data

Quote:
Dr. Long suggests that NCDC’s adjustments eradicated the difference between rural and urban environments, thus hiding urban heating. The consequence:

“…is a five-fold increase in the rural temperature rate of increase and a slight decrease in the rate of increase of the urban temperature.”

The analysis concludes that NCDC “…has taken liberty to alter the actual rural measured values”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/2...urban-us-surface-temperature-data/
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:48 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 24):
So go and do better, or quit complaining. That is a standard GOP response is it not. Science is in your hands, go do it NOW.

  
The data you've been using to "prove" global warming is coming from sources that may be giving false readings due to numerous factors, and instead of saying "well this is something to consider and might just be what is causing this rise in temperature" your response is "well you figure out how to do it better and I'll continue to believe the warped data".    Nice.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 24):
"ALL" sorts, now who is exaggerating.

How is he exaggerating? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the things in the picture - especially the asphalt and the air conditioning units will have a significant impact on the reading.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 26):
when finished with this small task would you also like to design us a better fusion bomb too

I love your argument style. "The data may be skewed but it will take too long to get the right data so let's just continue to believe the skewed data".   

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 27):
Are you nervous?

Me thinks so.   
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:55 pm

Quoting windy95 (Reply 37):
Raw Data
Quoting windy95 (Reply 37):
Massaged, adjusted, scammed data
Quoting windy95 (Reply 37):
The analysis concludes that NCDC “…has taken liberty to alter the actual rural measured values”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/2...data/

It is interesting the NCDC saw it needed to adjust only the raw data for the rual sites, but not for the urban sites.

Station Set
oC/Century, 11-Year Average Based on the Use of

Raw Data
Adjusted Data

Rural (48)
0.11
0.58

Urban (48)
0.72
0.72

Rural + Urban (96)
0.47
0.65

"The values in the table highlight four important considerations:


1) The rate of increase for rural locations, based on as-measured (raw) values, is small
(if not, in effect, zero) at 0.11 oC/century.


2) There is definitely a UHIE in that the urban raw data has a rate of increase of 0.72oC/century. This tells us that man has caused warming in urban locations. This finding should not surprise anyone. On the other hand, because the rural value is 15% of the urban value, the UHIE has not caused warming in the rural locations, and it certainly has not caused a global sense of warming other than the aspect that the urban location values when averaged with the rural values produce an average increase which is larger than that of the rural alone.


3) The rural + urban value for the adjusted data, 0.65oC/century, is still less than the 0.69oC/century published by the NCDC. Thus, likely, there are more urban than rural sites used by the NCDC.


4) And this is the "Temperaturegate" aspect: The NCDC's massaging -- they call it "adjusting" -- has resulted in an increase in the rural values, from a raw value of 0.11oC/century to an adjusted value of 0.58oC/century, and no change in the urban values. That is, the NCDC's treatment has forced the rural value to look more like that of the urban. This is the exact opposite of any rational consideration, given the growth of the sizes of and activities within urban locations, unless deception is the goal."



http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/..._pending_american_temperature.html

The hoax continues..............
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:17 pm

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 38):
The data you've been using to "prove" global warming is coming from sources that may be giving false readings due to numerous factors, and instead of saying "well this is something to consider and might just be what is causing this rise in temperature" your response is "well you figure out how to do it better and I'll continue to believe the warped data"

Or you could have a look at this assessement.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
While urban areas are undoubtedly warmer than surrounding rural areas, this has had little to no impact on warming trends.

When compiling temperature records, NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from Urban Heat Island Effect. They compare urban long term trends to nearby rural trends. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches the rural trend. The process is described in detail on the NASA website (Hansen 2001).

They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (eg - a park within the city). The point is they're aware of UHI and rigorously adjust for it when analysing temperature records.

This confirms a peer review study by the NCDC (Peterson 2003) that did statistical analysis of urban and rural temperature anomalies and concluded "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures... Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions."

Another more recent study (Parker 2006) plotted 50 year records of temperatures observed on calm nights, the other on windy nights. He concluded "temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development".


But then you do not want to believe that, you would sooner take the Long way round.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 38):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 24):
"ALL" sorts, now who is exaggerating.

How is he exaggerating?

You see down here, "ALL" still means every possible factor. Apparently according to Dn there is not a problem that is not affecting the data. Dogs leaking on trees, killer whales perhaps. ALL.

If you want to pick pick pick at possible nits in someone's work, best not to be flea infested yourself? Just a thought.
 
windy95
Posts: 2776
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:45 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 40):
When compiling temperature records, NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from Urban Heat Island Effect

Then why are they not adjusted down but the rural areas are adjusted up?. What a joke. The UHIE canard has been exposed.
 
windy95
Posts: 2776
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:47 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 40):
This confirms a peer review study by the NCDC (Peterson 2003) that did statistical analysis of urban and rural temperature anomalies and concluded

And now newer studies show this not to be true. Including the one from Georgia Teach that I posted a few threads ago that showed that more than half of the warming was from UHIE.
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:03 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 40):
If you want to pick pick pick at possible nits in someone's work, best not to be flea infested yourself? Just a though

  
If you can't determine the difference in "nit picking" between the statement "90% of the data comes from skewed sources" and DN saying "All sorts" (which is common use here in the US the way DN used it - "numerous", even if "incorrect" by proper English standards), then please tell me - why should any argument you post should be taken seriously?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 40):
But then you do not want to believe that, you would sooner take the Long way round.

So all you did was show that some of the themometers in urban areas are "adjusted" for, but that doesn't explain why the thermometers in rural areas are not indicating the trend in global warming that the GW crowd adovcates, as TopBoom points out below

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
The rate of increase for rural locations, based on as-measured (raw) values, is small
(if not, in effect, zero) at 0.11 oC/century.
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
windy95
Posts: 2776
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:59 pm

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 43):
So all you did was show that some of the themometers in urban areas are "adjusted

And the raw data in the urban areas has been in no way adjusted down. Rural areas are adjusted up and Urban areas kept the same equals Scientist made global warming.
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:12 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
If this triggers a proper judicial investigation of the actual scientific basis of climate research, that could be a very good thing.

LMAO! Can you imagine this twit Inhofe being anyone of merit to comment on any proof? This is the man after all that was outraged over anyone complaining about the prisoner treatment and sexual abuse they suffered by Americans in Abu Gharib. He was only 1 of 9 Senators that voted against the DTA act that prohibited the "inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay". He despises gay people and rights, and believes wholeheartedly in creation being taught in the classrooms of a science class. Pulllleze. What a maroon as Bugs would say.

As for global warming he's the same idiot stick that quotes Chris Allen profusely, and calls him an "expert", a "scientist", and a "scholar". Chris Allen is a religious whack job, god mobbing, end of the world, uneducated moron. As if some weatherman with only a high school education from Kentucky of all places has equal standing anywhere for scholarly work compared to doctorate decreed scholars.

Unreal. The planet Earth will welcome the 75 year old luddite to return to it as dust as is coming shortly.
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:58 pm

And that, gentlemen, is what we call Ad-Hominem, one of the basic logical fallacies identified millenia ago. For our next example of flawed thinking we will feature...

[waits for next global warmist to post]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:04 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 40):
If you want to pick pick pick at possible nits in someone's work, best not to be flea infested yourself? Just a thought.

Isn't that how some scientists figuered out the German physicist Jan Hendrick Schon was a fraud? He tried to scam the world, too, just like some of his fellow scientists are doing today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n

http://www.deutsche-welle.de/dw/article/0,2144,646321,00.html

Quoting windy95 (Reply 41):
When compiling temperature records, NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from Urban Heat Island Effect

Then why are they not adjusted down but the rural areas are adjusted up?.

Because using raw data they cannot justify man caused GW. Therefore they need to "adjust" the rural data to show the same as the urban data, as I pointed out in reply #39.

But, don't worry hoaxers, your "god" AlGore is riding to your rescue with a op-ed piece in the liberal "bible", the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html

A "few mistakes" made by AlGore and the IPCC is not simply "mistakes", but out and out lies and attempts at control and theft of the world's economies.

"The chief defence offered by the warmists to all those revelations centred on the IPCC's last 2007 report is that they were only a few marginal mistakes scattered through a vast, 3,000-page document. OK, they say, it might have been wrong to predict that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035; that global warming was about to destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields by 50 per cent; that sea levels were rising dangerously; that hurricanes, droughts and other "extreme weather events" were getting worse. These were a handful of isolated errors in a massive report; behind them the mighty edifice of global warming orthodoxy remains unscathed. The "science is settled", the "consensus" is intact."

"All these alarms were given special prominence in the IPCC's 2007 report and each of them has now been shown to be based, not on hard evidence, but on scare stories, derived not from proper scientists but from environmental activists. Those glaciers are not vanishing; the damage to the rainforest is not from climate change but logging and agriculture; African crop yields are more likely to increase than diminish; the modest rise in sea levels is slowing not accelerating; hurricane activity is lower than it was 60 years ago; droughts were more frequent in the past; there has been no increase in floods or heatwaves."

"In addition, we can now read in shocking detail the truth of the outrageous efforts made to ensure that the same 2007 report was able to keep on board IPCC's most shameless stunt of all – the notorious "hockey stick" graph purporting to show that in the late 20th century, temperatures had been hurtling up to unprecedented levels. This was deemed necessary because, after the graph was made the centrepiece of the IPCC's 2001 report, it had been exposed as no more than a statistical illusion. (For a full account see Andrew Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion, and also my own book The Real Global Warming Disaster.)

In other words, in crucial respects the IPCC's 2007 report was no more than reckless propaganda, designed to panic the world's politicians into agreeing at Copenhagen in 2009 that we should all pay by far the largest single bill ever presented to the human race, amounting to tens of trillions of dollars. And as we know, faced with the prospect of this financial and economic abyss, December's Copenhagen conference ended in shambles, with virtually nothing agreed."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:44 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
Those glaciers are not vanishing;

Now who is hoaxing? Most are in retreat, the fault is stating they would be gone by 2035, not that they are retreating.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html

From the newspaper you applauded in another thread for being under the impression that another country ruled the United Kingdom.
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:10 am

Meanwhile, on a small ice floe near Greenland:

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100203_Figure3.png

(A decline of 3.2% per decade)

[Edited 2010-03-02 02:13:05]
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:05 pm

And meanwhile, confidently above any human inhabitation:



(Climateprogress.com)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: stl07, TheF15Ace and 35 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos