Climategate II? Scientific community accused of muzzling dissent on global warming

a reply to: beezzer

Somewhere, hold on.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

It's thought to be a cause for brain overgrowth and thus potentially a causal factor for autism. So now that you know, would you ask the doctors how they feel about autism or suspect they were being funded to lie about their data for some NWO agenda?

Now if prenatal exposure to some petrochemical were to be found (purely fiction on my part to make a point) to cause an increase in prefrontal neurons and it was found out to come from the styrofoam cups mom drank her tea out of on her way to work everyday... and the major manufacturers of styrofoam went all tobacco lawyer and painted the 50 doctors as agents of the NWO agenda to kill the styrofoam industry and put thousands of people out of work to increase poverty in order to herd the hungry masses together...

You get the idea?

Ironically, your argument works to illustrate my point as well.

a reply to: tadaman

Thanks for all that, but still not one example of a agenda 21 project anywhere in the US.

My question is,

Why in the hell did this whole climate change thing come to the fore front of news,saturday family talks, filling up the gas tank at the darn gas station.

Seriously, the media and government are cramming this down our throats at an alarmimg rate.

It is obvious to me there is an agenda, and this agenda is aimed at the poor working shmuck such as myself. Because if it wasn't then businesses would make the changes needed and offer the people other opportunities.

This is all a propaganda push to make the poor and middle class suffer, or cutback more, all the while the rich and the politicians continue business as usual.

People are falling for it hook, line, and sinker. Just look around, the propaganda machine has everyone on the edge believing that the people of earth will just not wake up one day, everyone dead, all is lost, there is no hope. Oh wait there is hope, just do as we say, not as we do.

There is not enough LONG TERM DATA to conclude that we all be doomed in 100 years.

Period.

a reply to: LDragonFire

did you look at the last link? I can post some of it if you were having trouble reading it or if sloth is your problem.

Somehow I doubt you mowed through all that information so quickly. Unless you are Johnny 5

EDIT TO ADD with love:
www.activistpost.com...

www.activistpost.com...

nwri.org...

www.infowars.com...

There is more but you would need to generally READ with a real interest to find those examples you say elude you. All those links are chop full of them.

here is more context for others really.

Introduction
This section should set the context, why the principle is important, what factors gave rise to it.
Implementation
This section should analyze the status of implementation of the principle globally, including the following:
• A broad and brief analysis of global implementation i.e. how prevalent the principle is in global and national
decision-making, policy and law, the main drivers
• Examples of regional and national implementation (specific case studies only, a full-scale analysis of
national implementation will not be possible)
• Examples of global, regional and national instruments, including evaluations of efficacy of instruments
where possible
• An overview of the key actors and organizations that have influenced progress towards implementation,
their past, ongoing and future campaigns
Challenges and Conflicts
This section should focus on some of the challenges to implementation of the Principle more generally,
including:
• Disparities in the application of the principle across UN Member States, including an analysis of political,
economic, cultural and industrial interests that might influence this
• Conflicting policies and legislation globally e.g. World Bank, IMF, WTO
• Interest groups and actors that are opposed to the implementation of the principle
The Way Forward
This section should provide an analysis of the possible ‘way forward’ for the Principle, based on the author’s
own analysis of the ‘state of the debate’ but also referring to views of experts in the field. It should include
the following:
• Identification of further steps that could be taken to more fully implement the Principle in question
• Identification of the trade-offs associated with the Principle that must be addressed
• Identification of particular actors (where relevant) whose approach will need to change
• Identification of prevailing social, political, environmental and economic drivers which will influence the
likelihood of implementation.

sustainabledevelopment.un.org...

a reply to: beezzer

This whole page is worth a read.

Q1: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?

A recent study conducted by scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center found no evidence that the U.S. temperature trend is inflated by poor siting of stations that comprise the US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN).
NCDC scientists conducted this study to determine the reliability of surface temperature trends over the conterminous U.S. (CONUS) following photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at USHCN stations.
A comparison of trends derived from poorly and well-sited USHCN stations indicates that there is a bias associated with poor exposure sites in the unadjusted USHCN version 2 data (relative to data from good exposure sites). However, this bias is consistent with previous studies documenting the impact of the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years because the majority of poor exposure sites were subject to this instrument change.
Of significant note, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes led to an artificial negative ("cool") bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive ("warm") bias in minimum temperatures.
Adjustments largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes but appear to leave a small overall residual negative ("cool") bias in the adjusted USHCN version 2 CONUS average maximum temperature.
The adjusted USHCN CONUS temperatures are well aligned with recent measurements from NOAA's U.S. Climate Reference Network (designed with the highest climate monitoring standards for siting and instrument exposure), thus providing independent evidence that the USHCN provides an accurate measure of the U.S. temperature.
The results of this study underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities.
Information on the siting characteristics of USHCN stations and additional details on this study
These results are documented in: Menne, M.J., C.N. Williams, Jr., and M.A. Palecki, 2010: On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record. J. Geophys. Res. doi:10.1029/2009JD013094.

NOAA

At the moment I can't find the information I read I think it was on NOAA's site even, that they use new stations all remotely located... I'll try again in the morning.

ETA lol it's briefly mentioned in the bottom of the quote.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: tadaman

Thanks for all that, but still not one example of a agenda 21 project anywhere in the US.

Smart meters

Solar and wind projects, and all the BLM environmental mitigation connected with the construction.

New buildings energy programs that cost big money.

Good God.

Have you actually read the Agenda 21 document from the U.N. ?????

The U.S. has ICLEI

Good God.

You actually know these things right?

[ ignore button pressed ]

a reply to: Kali74

I'll star you just for your persistence alone.

If you honestly believe in an agenda, then I am at a loss to convince you otherwise.

I will remain a critical thinker and question everything. I am a doubting Thomas. I don't trust, rely, count on, adhere to anyone or any one group.

Sometimes I wish I had your confidence to blindly follow.

a reply to: liejunkie01

There is not enough LONG TERM DATA to conclude that we all be doomed in 100 years. Period.

No climatologists are saying we are doomed in 100 years. Period. Worst case scenarios are pretty grim, but not doom.
Actually, I don't really know of any politicians that are saying that (not that I pay a lot of attention to them anyway).

The only people that seem to be saying that are warming deniers, in the context of "they say we are doomed in 100 years." Seems to be a strawman argument. Pretty much.

a reply to: Phage

Ever heard of Al gore? Mr "we will not have Antarctic ice in blah blah" or Bill Nye....the children's show host /mechanical engineer who got his degree in the 70s yet is every ones favorite climate expert...LOL


"Would there be hurricanes and floods and droughts without man-made global warming? Of course. But they’re stronger now. The extreme events are more extreme. The hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now they’re adding a 6. The fingerprint of man-made global warming is all over these storms and extreme weather events." Mr gore.

a reply to: beezzer

I don't give a damn about stars. This isn't about believing an agenda... and I'm quite capable of critical thinking. Are you? Or is it just easier for you to listen to Koch funded spin? Seriously? How the hell can you claim such when there is almost ZERO actual science being done to refute AGW Theory? Do you even understand that you're not reading any actual science on WATTS or hearing it from Rush or wherever the hell you get your climate info from... you are actually getting it from Heritage and Heartland and CATO who cherry pick papers and articles written by actual scientists apart with tobacco lawyers (literally)? The OP is prime example of it... it's right here in front of your eyes right now this very minute...

The full quote actually said “Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”

“As the referees report states, ‘The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low.’ This means that the study does not meet ERL’s requirement for papers to significantly advance knowledge of the field.”

“Far from denying the validity of Bengtsson’s questions, the referees encouraged the authors to provide more innovative ways of undertaking the research to create a useful advance.”

“As the report reads, ‘A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.”

“Far from hounding ‘dissenting’ views from the field, Environmental Research Letters positively encourages genuine scientific innovation that can shed light on complicated climate science.”

“The journal Environmental Research Letters is respected by the scientific community because it plays a valuable role in the advancement of environmental science – for unabashedly not publishing oversimplified claims about environmental science, and encouraging scientific debate.”

“With current debate around the dangers of providing a false sense of ‘balance’ on a topic as societally important as climate change, we’re quite astonished that The Times has taken the decision to put such a non-story on its front page.”

Please find the reviewer report below quoted in The Times, exactly as sent to Lennart Bengtsson.

We are getting permission from the other referees for this paper to make their reports available as soon as possible.

REFEREE REPORT(S):

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent "assessments" of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.

The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.

The finding of differences between the three "assessments" and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.

The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors" being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.

What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of "reasons" and "causes" for the differences.

- The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.
- The differences in the forcing estimates used e.g. between Otto et al 2013 and AR5 are not some "unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors" but are following different tow different logics, and also two different (if only slightly) methods of compiling aggregate uncertainties relative to the reference period, i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately "adjusted" to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology
- The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfunded from the beginning.
- Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn't fit the same ranges)

Read more at link

Does that sound like anything even remotely close to what the guy is claiming?

Wipe your own nose before telling me I have a booger coming out of mine. Wow.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Kali74

I'll star you just for your persistence alone.

If you honestly believe in an agenda, then I am at a loss to convince you otherwise.

I will remain a critical thinker and question everything. I am a doubting Thomas. I don't trust, rely, count on, adhere to anyone or any one group.

Sometimes I wish I had your confidence to blindly follow.

Unless its fox news or am radio because you parrot there views here everyday. Don't you?

a reply to: Kali74

Ironic, isn't it?

This happens to follow your political ideology.

Climate cares not a damn about politics.

But you and yours are sure to bend it so that it does.

I thought ATS would be a safe-haven for doubters.

Not for goose-stepping followers.

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Kali74

I'll star you just for your persistence alone.

If you honestly believe in an agenda, then I am at a loss to convince you otherwise.

I will remain a critical thinker and question everything. I am a doubting Thomas. I don't trust, rely, count on, adhere to anyone or any one group.

Sometimes I wish I had your confidence to blindly follow.

Unless its fox news or am radio because you parrot there views here everyday. Don't you?

Nope.

Now you're being disingenuous. Because you know I don't follow one specific ideology.

You've been here long enough to see that even I don't agree with what the politically conservatives adhere to.

Shame on you for trying to paint me in a box that I don't fit into.

a reply to: tadaman

Do you know that quote (misquote shouted throughout the echo chamber) has been posted in the past like 20 climate change threads?

"Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years."

Not that I care what he says about anything... just further proof of the crap peddled by deniers. Personally I wish he'd STFU.

a reply to: beezzer

So faced with facts that refute the claim of this guy that his paper was rejected because it went up against the big bad AGW dudes, you're not going to address it and instead for the second post in a row, insult me by calling me a nazi sheep? Pathetic.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: liejunkie01

There is not enough LONG TERM DATA to conclude that we all be doomed in 100 years. Period.

No climatologists are saying we are doomed in 100 years. Period. Worst case scenarios are pretty grim, but not doom.
Actually, I don't really know of any politicians that are saying that (not that I pay a lot of attention to them anyway).

The only people that seem to be saying that are warming deniers, in the context of "they say we are doomed in 100 years." Seems to be a strawman argument. Pretty much.

You apparently have not visited American focused "news" outlets such as Slate, Salon, or MotherJones.

LoL, prepare for a good laugh.

/EDIT

Here are few listed under under the climate change section;
Terrifying “fire tornado” spurts out of California wildfire
www.salon.com...

Paul Krugman: Prepare for even more insane GOP climate denial
The New York Times columnist lambasts the GOP for its "crazy climate economics"
www.salon.com...

Neil deGrasse Tyson goes there on climate change, creationists wig out accordingly
Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis uses the Bible to refute the science of "Cosmos" and loses -- again
www.salon.com...

You can see where certain other members of this site get their own rhetoric from . . . climate change deniers are all creationists LOLOLOLOL Amazing I'm looking at you.

Al Roker, please save us from the idiots! Why the future of earth is riding on him
Obama talked climate change with TV weathermen for a reason: We need them to defeat GOP's anti-science forces
www.salon.com...

LOLOLOLOL ahahahaha sorry I have actually read several of these and feel like I walked into a cult meeting.

Harry Reid: The Koch brothers are a “main cause” of climate change
www.salon.com...

-FBB

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

So faced with facts that refute the claim of this guy that his paper was rejected because it went up against the big bad AGW dudes, you're not going to address it and instead for the second post in a row, insult me by calling me a nazi sheep? Pathetic.

I'm not the one baa-ing.

I was a doubter before the paper, I was a doubter before many of the papers.

But then again, I've been trained and schooled as a scientist.









I will always question.

a reply to: tadaman

Hey thanks for posting and my research continues, but those blogs didn't prove anything about agenda 21. I really want to know if agenda 21 is actively in effect so my research will continue but it should make a good thread someday.

beezzer I didn't mean to disrespect but I'm tired and grouchy so im going to bed, so ill continue this tomorrow.

originally posted by: LDragonFire


beezzer I didn't mean to disrespect but I'm tired and grouchy so im going to bed, so ill continue this tomorrow.

Peace out my brother.