[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Uploading Music - macadavy - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:18pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - zevon - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:17pm
 
Oldest Rock song on RP - johkir - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:07pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 3:28pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Ukraine - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:41pm
 
Breaking News - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:22pm
 
Orbiting Earth - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:19pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:17pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:13pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:06pm
 
Israel - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:03pm
 
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes. - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
Irony 101 - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:15pm
 
RP automation with iOS Shortcuts App - pradler4kant - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:57am
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:31am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:27am
 
March 2024 Photo Theme - Many - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:07am
 
Wordle - daily game - rgio - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:00am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Beaker - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:30am
 
NY Times Strands - geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:37am
 
NYTimes Connections - geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:29am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - pilgrim - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:19am
 
Business as Usual - black321 - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:09am
 
Trump - rgio - Mar 28, 2024 - 7:29am
 
Outstanding Covers - thisbody - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:51am
 
Today in History - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:28am
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - haresfur - Mar 27, 2024 - 6:21pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Mar 27, 2024 - 3:48pm
 
Please Don't Post Here - Red_Dragon - Mar 27, 2024 - 11:02am
 
Motivational Office Cliches... - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 26, 2024 - 10:20pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - Red_Dragon - Mar 26, 2024 - 6:18pm
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - islander - Mar 26, 2024 - 8:00am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - Beez - Mar 26, 2024 - 7:24am
 
Food - Steely_D - Mar 26, 2024 - 1:41am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Mar 25, 2024 - 6:56pm
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Mar 25, 2024 - 3:48pm
 
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands) - kingen - Mar 25, 2024 - 2:43pm
 
China - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:59am
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:20am
 
Play history seems to indicate that I"m streaming 24/7, b... - jarro - Mar 25, 2024 - 10:44am
 
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse - Coaxial - Mar 24, 2024 - 6:22pm
 
New Music - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 24, 2024 - 5:07pm
 
Dental Floss Tycoons, and other Montana Myths, Facts, and... - Red_Dragon - Mar 24, 2024 - 12:32pm
 
Basketball - oldviolin - Mar 23, 2024 - 2:50pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 23, 2024 - 1:54pm
 
Joe Biden - kurtster - Mar 23, 2024 - 11:17am
 
Technical Streaming Note for Nerdy RP DIYers - sjagminas1 - Mar 23, 2024 - 10:16am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Proclivities - Mar 23, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Other Medical Stuff - Antigone - Mar 22, 2024 - 3:06pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - oldviolin - Mar 22, 2024 - 11:06am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Mar 22, 2024 - 9:17am
 
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones - Bill_J - Mar 21, 2024 - 8:54pm
 
Can you afford to retire? - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 21, 2024 - 2:15pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 21, 2024 - 11:10am
 
What Did You See Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 20, 2024 - 5:13pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 20, 2024 - 4:31pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Antigone - Mar 20, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Russia - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 20, 2024 - 11:44am
 
2024 Elections! - Lazy8 - Mar 20, 2024 - 7:26am
 
Economix - R_P - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:36pm
 
Name My Band - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:53am
 
Delicacies: a..k.a.. the Gross Food forum - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:12am
 
New Forum Member on "What Makes RP Great" - miamizsun - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:38am
 
Cache stopped working on old Android Phone - Eisenwindel - Mar 19, 2024 - 1:50am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - Bill_J - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:23pm
 
Damn Dinosaurs! - oldviolin - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:16pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - geoff_morphini - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:58pm
 
Great guitar faces - skyguy - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:33pm
 
Despots, dictators and war criminals - R_P - Mar 18, 2024 - 12:41pm
 
Media Matters - thisbody - Mar 18, 2024 - 10:03am
 
NASA & other news from space - miamizsun - Mar 18, 2024 - 4:13am
 
MEALTICKET - drinpt - Mar 17, 2024 - 4:13am
 
What makes you smile? - Steely_D - Mar 16, 2024 - 7:31pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 92, 93, 94 ... 125, 126, 127  Next
Post to this Topic
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 4, 2010 - 3:48pm

 Steve wrote:
Wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the WTF thread.
W.T.F.???

Hurricane Katrina victims to sue greenhouse gas emitters


 

I gotta quote Outlaw Josey Wales for this WTF; "We all died a little in that war."   What, are they gonna sue themselves too???{#Rolleyes}
Steve

Steve Avatar

Location: Around My Corner... and Up Yours
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 4, 2010 - 3:38pm

Wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the WTF thread.
W.T.F.???

Hurricane Katrina victims to sue greenhouse gas emitters



miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 4, 2010 - 2:47pm


J.P. Morgan Chase wants to sell you carbon offsets. (Please feel free to purchase as needed.)

I think they paid over $200,000,000 for EcoSecurities a carbon trading firm.
Estimates are the market could be worth $3,000,000,000,000 by 2020.
Probably not a bad investment for them.


duchamp

duchamp Avatar

Location: Florida Panhandle
Gender: Female


Posted: Mar 4, 2010 - 7:57am

 sirdroseph wrote:


I am from South Carolina, when it comes to backward thinking; we got y'all beat so I am allowed freedom on this subject!{#Nyah}{#Lol}

 
{#Lol}.   good point.....just foolin' with you.


sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 4, 2010 - 7:51am

 duchamp wrote:

Yea, it's not like some of us might be a product of Kentucky or anything. = )


 

I am from South Carolina, when it comes to backward thinking; we got y'all beat so I am allowed freedom on this subject!{#Nyah}{#Lol}
Inamorato

Inamorato Avatar

Location: Twin Cities
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 4, 2010 - 7:31am

 RichardPrins wrote:
Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets
Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools.

In Kentucky, a bill recently introduced in the Legislature would encourage teachers to discuss “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,” including “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.” (...)

Oh noes, didn't see that coming...

 

Morons on parade in the Bible Belt.


duchamp

duchamp Avatar

Location: Florida Panhandle
Gender: Female


Posted: Mar 4, 2010 - 6:52am

 sirdroseph wrote:

Yea, that is odd cause Kentucky is usually the bedrock of progressive, scientific thinking. ...

 
Yea, it's not like some of us might be a product of Kentucky or anything. = )



n4ku

n4ku Avatar

Location: --... ...--


Posted: Mar 4, 2010 - 6:42am

 AliGator wrote:


 
Apparently, the bill has yet to be considered in the House, but I imagine it will get shot down there, as did that noxious anti-choice bill the Senate passed.
oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 4, 2010 - 6:39am

 AliGator wrote:


 

We have no King but Ceaser...


AliGator

AliGator Avatar



Posted: Mar 4, 2010 - 5:59am

 RichardPrins wrote:

I don't know much about Kentucky, other than that they have had a tendency for some odd religious influence on their law here and there, like needing god to be mentioned with regards to state security. It is however far more interesting from a national perspective, because as I've pointed out before in this thread, both of these pseudoskeptics use the exact same tactics, just funded by different 'research institutes'. On the one hand we have the CATO Institute and the Marshall Institute for climate change deniers, and on the other there is something like the Discovery Institute to help the creationists obfuscate science.

Heh. Yeah. The state government just decided to allow an elective class about the Bible to be taught in schools here. Y'know, for cultural literacy.

Edit: Ooops, that bill got shot down in the House, Allan informs me. I need to pay closer attention.
 


marko86

marko86 Avatar

Location: North TX
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 4, 2010 - 5:54am

 It is shocking how effective they are. It is clearly easier to throw doubt on something then to actually prove a point scientifically and there will always be those who like to cut and paste it to forums, thinking they are somehow contributing to a discussion. I often think why bother engaging these people. It's like, why would you bother arguing with someone who believed the earth was flat or the sun revolves around the earth? Then I figured because George W got elected and then re-elected, it was possibly the lack of standing up for science that help that to happen and I just cannot abide by that. Of course there is an inherent risk of looking foolish in arguing with someone who went to the PeeWee Herman school of debate.


R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 4, 2010 - 5:27am

 sirdroseph wrote:
Yea, that is odd cause Kentucky is usually the bedrock of progressive, scientific thinking. 

I don't know much about Kentucky, other than that they have had a tendency for some odd religious influence on their law here and there, like needing god to be mentioned with regards to state security.

It is however far more interesting from a national perspective, because as I've pointed out before in this thread, both of these pseudoskeptics use the exact same tactics, just funded by different 'research institutes'. On the one hand we have the CATO Institute and the Marshall Institute for climate change deniers, and on the other there is something like the Discovery Institute to help the creationists obfuscate science.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 4, 2010 - 5:17am

 RichardPrins wrote:
Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets
Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools.

In Kentucky, a bill recently introduced in the Legislature would encourage teachers to discuss “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,” including “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.” (...)

Oh noes, didn't see that coming...

 
Yea, that is odd cause Kentucky is usually the bedrock of progressive, scientific thinking. I swear sometimes I wanna start a different country; with all those that look through at the world through the prism of faith, belief and stagnation on one side and those who look at the world through observation, science and adaptation on the other.{#Rolleyes} Mind you, I am not saying that these types of people are geographically situated and grouped together now, quite the contrary, doing this would give both types of people the opportunity to escape the other!{#Lol}

Strange, I suppose this is one of the few things Sarah Palin and I would agree on, she already has said there is 2 America's one "real" and the other "unreal??"  Not sure zactly, but I am sure she would go for this plan as well.{#Cheesygrin}
R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 4, 2010 - 5:14am

Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets
Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools.

In Kentucky, a bill recently introduced in the Legislature would encourage teachers to discuss “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,” including “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.” (...)

Oh noes, didn't see that coming...
cookinlover

cookinlover Avatar

Location: Auckland, New Zealand (former Boston native and Atlanta transplant)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 3, 2010 - 9:42pm

That's great, it starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes,
an aeroplane - Lenny Bruce is not afraid.
Eye of a hurricane, listen to yourself churn,
world serves its own needs, dummy serve your own needs.
Feed it off an aux speak,, grunt, no, strength,
The ladder starts to clatter with fear fight down height.
Wire in a fire, representing seven games, a government for hire and a combat site.
Left of west and coming in a hurry with the furies breathing down your neck.
Team by team reporters baffled, trumped, tethered cropped.
Look at that low playing!
Fine, then.
Uh oh, overflow, population, common food, but it'll do.
Save yourself, serve yourself. World serves its own needs, listen to your heart bleed dummy with the rapture and the revered and the right - right.
You vitriolic, patriotic, slam, fight, bright light, feeling pretty psyched. It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
jadewahoo

jadewahoo Avatar

Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 3, 2010 - 9:38pm

Chile Earthquake: Is Mother Nature Out of Control?

By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Managing Editor

posted: 27 February 2010 12:35 pm ET

Chile is on a hotspot of sorts for earthquake activity. And so the 8.8-magnitude temblor that shook the capital region overnight was not a surprise, historically speaking. Nor was it outside the realm of normal, scientists say, even though it comes on the heels of other major earthquakes.

One scientist, however, says that relative to a time period in the past, the Earth has been more active over the past 15 years or so.

Read the full article from Live Science




R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 3, 2010 - 3:04pm

The Earth has its own set of rules
B.E. Mahall and F.H. Bormann wrote:
Early in our history it didn't make any difference how we viewed our environment. We could change it, and if we didn't like what we did to it, we could move and natural processes would soon obliterate whatever we had done. Over the years, models of our relationship to the environment have been based on religious views, with the world provided for us to dominate and subdue as described in Genesis, and philosophical views, seeing wisdom and virtue in nature as described by Thoreau.

But by far our most prevalent view of nature derives from a rudimentary human desire for more. This is the basis of the economic model that currently directs our relationships with one another and with our environment. It has produced stupendous human population growth and dramatic, deleterious effects on nature. Recognizing these effects, efforts have been marshaled to change the self-serving economic model with notions of Earth "stewardship," eloquently advanced decades ago by then-Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, and, most recently, to infiltrate the economic model with "ecosystem services" by assigning monetary values to functions performed by the Earth that are beneficial to people.

All of these views are fundamentally and dangerously flawed, because all are anthropocentric. They begin and end with humans. This isn't the way the Earth works.

The Earth has its own set of rules, solidly grounded in laws of physics and chemistry and emergent principles of geology and biology. Unlike our economic model, these are not artificial constructs. They are real, and they govern. Earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, 100-year floods, massive wildfires and disease epidemics are dramatic examples of parts of nature, neither all service nor all harm, creating and destroying, and governed by rules that are indifferent to humans. Our anthropocentric economic model for interacting with the world ignores and is proving to be incompatible with Earth's rules, and is therefore on a direct collision course with them.

To achieve a more accurate model of our relation to nature, we need to see ourselves as part of nature, governed by nature (not economics), beholden to nature for ecosystem services and subject to nature's disturbances.

We need to view our existence in nature as dependent on numerous functions we are unable to perform ourselves, and without which we couldn't survive. And we need to recognize that we now have the power and the reckless inclination, driven by shortsighted anthropocentrism, to disrupt these functions to the degree that Earth will become uninhabitable for us.

In the end, the physical, chemical and biological rules of Earth will certainly win, and we will either be on the winning side or we will be vanquished. These are the only choices.

Our anthropocentric economic model needs to be reconceived, incorporating Earth's rules, to become an Earth-centered, "terracentric" model. Stewardship needs to progress from a condescending view of humans tending their "garden" to an effort to become part of Earth without disrupting its vital functions. Ecosystem services need to advance from recognition of services to humans to recognition of services to our planet. We need to find ways to avoid changing Earth in irreversible directions. We need to soberly evaluate anthropocentric economics' sacred cow, growth, in light of sustainability. And we need to think beyond our own brief lifetimes. Most important, in the new terracentric model, we need to acknowledge that there is nothing more important than preserving the viability of planet Earth. Nothing.

Using human ecologist Garrett Hardin's metaphor, Earth is our only "lifeboat" in a sea of empty, cold blackness. Our lives, and those of other organisms, are allowed in this boat only because of a quasi-steady environmental state created by a unique balance of physical, chemical and biological conditions and processes governed by Earth's rules. The central task of ecology is to understand these conditions, processes and rules and thereby understand the qualities and dimensions of this steady state.

Unfortunately, before ecology has reached this understanding, humans are testing this steady state's robustness with anthropogenic changes in atmospheric chemistry that cause changes in radiation through the atmosphere, fundamental changes in ocean chemistry and changes in the whole planet's energy budget _ its balance of energy in and energy out. We are testing it with pervasive, potentially irreversible, long-term pollution of Earth's fresh and salt water, using a vast assortment of man-made chemicals that often possess biologically hazardous and ecologically unpredictable properties. We are testing it with relentless, massive, wholesale conversions of ecosystems, channeling their products exclusively into our own limitless consumption. And we are testing it with the global spread of biological species, causing a complex, hugely damaging homogenization of Earth's biota.

Recent measurements of unprecedented, directional changes in the vital signs of Earth suggest that we may have already staved in our lifeboat's hull, causing changes beyond the ability of Earth's biogeochemical forces to maintain balance. The quasi-steady state that makes our lives possible may be disappearing before our eyes. We are in direct conflict with Earth's rules.

The anthropocentric economic model is fundamentally incapable of providing more than temporary fixes for our massive environmental problems. Reliance on this invalid, incompetent model underlies the recent struggles of world leaders in Copenhagen and Washington to make significant progress in solving global environmental problems. Replacement of this failed model with an economic model that recognizes Earth's rules and embraces terracentricity as its essential focus is the primary step necessary to bring reality into our collective thinking and behavior, and provide an accurate conceptual basis for the hard decisions ahead that will determine the fate of life on our planet.

ABOUT THE WRITERS
Bruce E. Mahall is a professor of ecology at UC Santa Barbara. F. Herbert Bormann, a professor emeritus at Yale University, is one of the founders of the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study. They wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.

marko86

marko86 Avatar

Location: North TX
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 3, 2010 - 1:42pm

 Beaker wrote:

Pardon, why ever should anyone pay attention to a knee-jerk cut and paster?  That would be you Sisyphus.

You're not a climate scientist, nor even a scientist.  Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong Mark.
 

Having worked as nuclear engineer, I have pretty good understanding of the physics involved from chemistry to heat transfer and fluid flow. Most of what I know of climatology is from reading, alot. And what is your quals,, besides browsing the denial-sphere blogs and cut and pasting from there?
marko86

marko86 Avatar

Location: North TX
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 3, 2010 - 1:30pm

 Beaker wrote:
"It is increasingly apparent that we do not even know how much the world has warmed in recent decades, let alone the reason(s) why. It seems to me we are back to square one."

Source

Izzat person credible enuf for yas? 

—————

The state of ClimateGate today, March 3 2010.


 

Not really. Again you never actually pay attention to the science, do you?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/

How to cook a graph in three easy lessons

These days, when global warming inactivists need to trot out somebody with some semblance of scientific credentials (from the dwindling supply who have made themselves available for such purposes), it seems that they increasingly turn to Roy Spencer, a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama. Roy does have a handful of peer-reviewed publications, some of which have quite decent and interesting results in them. However, the thing you have to understand is that what he gets through peer-review is far less threatening to the mainstream picture of anthropogenic global warming than you'd think from the spin he puts on it in press releases, presentations and the blogosphere. His recent guest article on Pielke Sr's site is a case in point, and provides the fodder for our discussion today.

 

Actually, Roy has been pretty busy dishing out the confusion recently. Future posts will take a look at his mass market book on climate change, entitled Climate Confusion, published last month, and his article in National Review. We'll also dig into some of his peer reviewed work, notably the recent paper by Spencer and Braswell on climate sensitivity, and his paper on tropical clouds which is widely misquoted as supporting Lindzen's IRIS conjecture regarding stabilizing cloud feedback. But on to today's cooking lesson.

They call it "Internal Radiative Forcing." We call it "weather."

In Spencer and Braswell (2008), and to an even greater extent in his blog article, Spencer tries to introduce the rather peculiar notion of "internal radiative forcing" as distinct from cloud or water vapor feedback. He goes so far as to say that the IPCC is biased against "internal radiative forcing," in favor of treating cloud effects as feedback. Just what does he mean by this notion? And what, if any, difference does it make to the way IPCC models are formulated? The answer to the latter question is easy: none, since the concept of feedbacks is just something used to try to make sense of what a model does, and does not actually enter into the formulation of the model itself.

Clouds respond on a time scale of hours to weather conditions like the appearance of fronts, to oceanic conditions, and to external radiative forcing (such as the rising and setting of the Sun). Does Spencer really think that a subsystem with such a quick intrinsic time scale can just up and decide to lock into some new configuration and stay there for decades, forcing the ocean to be dragged along into some compatible state? Or does he perhaps mean that slow components,like the ocean, modulate the clouds, and the resulting cloud radiative forcing amplifies or damps the resulting interannual or decadal variability? That latter sounds a lot like a cloud feedback to me - acting on natural variability whose root cause is in the ponderous motions of the ocean.

Think of it like a pot of water boiling on a stove. What ultimately controls the rate of boiling, the setting of the stove knob or the turbulent fluctuations of the bubbles rising through the water? Roy's idea about clouds is like saying that you should expect big, long-lasting variations in the boiling rate because sometimes all the steam bubbles will decide to form on the left half of the pot leaving the right half bubble-free - and that things will remain that way despite all the turbulence for hours on end.

The only sense that can be made of Spencer's notion is that there is some natural variability in the climate system, which in turn causes a natural variability to some extent in the radiation budget of the planet, which in turn may modify the natural variability. Is this news? Is this shocking? Is this something that should lead us to doubt model predictions of global warming? No - it is just part and parcel of the same old question of whether the pattern of the 20th and 21st century can be ascribed to natural variability without the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The IPCC, among others, nailed that, and nobody has demonstrated that natural variability can do the trick. Roy thinks he has, but as we shall soon see, it's all a matter of how you run your ingredients through the food processor.


R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 9:06pm

 Beaker wrote:

Finally, a scientific discipline enters the Climategate fray with a bang:

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

See also.

IOP and the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into the disclosure of climate data
Institute of Physics News

The Institute of Physics recently submitted a response to a House of Commons Science and Technology Committee call for evidence in relation to its inquiry into the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

The Institute's statement, which has been published both on the Institute's website and the Committee's, has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.

That is not the case. The Institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing – and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change.
(...)

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 92, 93, 94 ... 125, 126, 127  Next