Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Editorial: Put up or shut up on global warming
The Orange County Register ^ | 1-20-2011 | Mark Landsbaum

Posted on 01/22/2011 11:44:33 AM PST by Mark Landsbaum

It is time for an independent investigation of whether or to what degree human activities are creating catastrophic global warming. It should be conducted by scientists untainted by advocacy and uncompromised through receiving taxes or private funding to advance or debunk the theory.

Many in the new Congress were elected on promises to re-evaluate global warming claims used to justify Draconian regulations. A "team of nongovernment and non-U.N. experts must be established with access to all the raw data, records, adjustments, fudges ... and computer codes currently being black-boxed by government scientists," says Robert Ferguson, president of the nonprofit Science and Public Policy Institute for "sound public policy based on sound science." We agree... (click through to the Register's editorial page for the entire editorial)

(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: environmentalism; globalwarming

1 posted on 01/22/2011 11:44:35 AM PST by Mark Landsbaum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mark Landsbaum

Memo to the OCR: The science is in, the investigation has been done and the results are: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a HOAX! Case closed.


2 posted on 01/22/2011 11:48:17 AM PST by mc5cents (Government doesn't solve problems, it subsidizes them. -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mark Landsbaum

If any government money is injected into the investigation, it automatically becomes invalid. This could be a tough gig. Honest, legitimate science is hard to find these days. Science is now all about the money. The findings and results always go to the highest bidder.


3 posted on 01/22/2011 11:50:12 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (They're not going to shut me up! - Sarah Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mark Landsbaum

But I thought all scientists are in agreement on global warming?


4 posted on 01/22/2011 12:06:37 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents

But a certain Nobel-anointed ass-clown can’t seem to get the message..


5 posted on 01/22/2011 12:07:18 PM PST by max americana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
AGW is a theory based on computer models. The reliability of the data for the models is in dispute. The models have not shown any predictive power. The earth may not be warming beyond normal variance, or maybe it is, it's to early to draw meaningful conclusions. Most of the scientific organization involved has wrecked their own credibility by supporting hysterical predictions(hockey sticks and Al Gore) or suborning fraud(Climate-gate).
Let's let the scientific community clean house, regroup,and check back in with us in 50 years.
6 posted on 01/22/2011 12:15:13 PM PST by Old North State (Don't blame me, I voted for Pedro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mark Landsbaum
...independent investigation...

No such thing. The global warming industry affects everyone. No one is independent of it.

...scientists untainted by advocacy and uncompromised through receiving taxes or private funding to advance or debunk the theory

Again, no such thing. Government funding and/or corporate funding underwrite all scientists. Science is expensive. Where else could the money come from to pay for it aside from taxes or profits?

There have been hundreds of millions of tax dollars spent promoting the idea that greenhouse gas emissions cause harm and that therefore massive government intervention in the private sector is necessary. This is a straightforward conflict-of-interest. Politicians and bureaucrats allocate money to create propaganda promoting the empowerment and enrichment of politicians and bureaucrats. No one remains uninfluenced by this level of spending and advocacy.

7 posted on 01/22/2011 12:31:10 PM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam

That is very true (no truly independent people). I am always extremely irked by the leftists that claim that any research funded by private industry is prejudiced in its outcome. The same charge is true moreover for any federally funded research. The sponsors expect a certain result to justify growing government more, reducing our freedoms, and controlling the populace. The “researchers” dutifully comply and provide the needed data. I am much more inclined to trust private industry than the government. Unfortunately, many industries, including petroleum, have been thoroughly corrupted and enjoy being on the government tit.


8 posted on 01/22/2011 12:38:48 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mark Landsbaum

When your only patron is government, your only product is political.


9 posted on 01/22/2011 12:45:29 PM PST by snarkbait (<<For Rent>>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mark Landsbaum
There is an excellent site that is investigating the validity of the temperature monitoring stations and here is an example of how bad the network is:


10 posted on 01/22/2011 12:49:24 PM PST by epithermal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: epithermal

Gosh I LOVE pie charts!! Especially really, really BIG ones. But what the hell does it say? Explain please.


11 posted on 01/22/2011 1:12:43 PM PST by mc5cents (Government doesn't solve problems, it subsidizes them. -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mark Landsbaum

The AGW theory should be suspect because real science was ignored. In true scientific inquiry, data would be analyzed openly by various researchers to prove or disprove the theory. With AGW, there was a clear agenda. Any research that might openly analyze the data were suppressed. Independent researchers who questioned the AGW theory were deemed “deniers” and discredited. Claims that the “science is settled” and a “consensus of scientists” should end any further open research were clearly not true science and entered the realm of unquestioned dogma. The East Anglia e-mails make it abundantly clear that climate data was being manipulated to give a preconcluded outcome. Even some scientists who originally supported AGW became skeptical as the projected outcomes did not come true. The MSM bought into the AGW hoax and refused to report any studies that countered the theory. The media’s almost comical gyrations to use the record cold and snowfall as “proof” that the earth is warming show desperation to defend the failed theory.


12 posted on 01/22/2011 1:19:09 PM PST by The Great RJ (The Bill of Rights: Another bill members of Congress haven't read.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: epithermal

Can’t tell you what it means, its on double secret probation.


13 posted on 01/22/2011 1:19:33 PM PST by ully2 (ully)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents
I think that what it says is that of all the temperature monitoring stations used to inform government decision making about global warming, almost 70% exhibited built-in monitoring errors that caused them to show temperatures between 2 and five degrees above the actual temperatue, while only 2% exhibited built-in errors that caused them to show temperatures even slightly below the actual temperature. This, in turn, demonstrates a 35-to-1 chance that a given measurement showed temperatures higher than reality, as opposed to lower than reality. If temperature monitoring errors were to arise as a result of random chance, we would expect to see something more on the order of a 1-to-1 chance; that is, for every temperature monitoring station that tended to report temperatures warmer than reality, we would expect to find approximately one station that tended to report temperatures cooler than reality.

You might ask yourself "what would account for the the 35-times-greater chance of reported temps being warmer than they should be, when compared to what we would expect from an 'honest error.'"

14 posted on 01/22/2011 1:27:00 PM PST by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mark Landsbaum

“It is time for an independent investigation of whether or to what degree human activities are creating catastrophic global warming.”

It may be discovered that it’s not possible to know whether or not human activities significantly affect the global weather systems, if an honest effort is made.


15 posted on 01/22/2011 1:44:04 PM PST by RoadTest (Religion is no substitute for the relationship God wants with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom
A whole lot of data in that pie chart. Thanks for the explanation. Piers Corbyn is now calling for a new independent effort to analyze global temps. Claims the current data base and sensing stations are inadequate and procedures are corrupt.

This is bullsh--t, says astrophysicist. Warm weather NOT causing cold.

"The Claim 2010 is '2nd warmest year on record' - is delusional, irrelevant & disingenuous – the last gasp of the failed global warming cult”

Piers Corbyn warns of more extreme events USA, Australia & Europe at end of month "This will probably be the most exciting weather year around the world for a century"

16 posted on 01/22/2011 2:12:59 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest

We could at least start with determining whether the planet is warming or cooling, irrespective of human influence. Right now the error bar states we do not have enough accuracy to even determine positive or negative anomaly. Which is why I trust the Floridian Manatees more then I trust the NWO Apes.


17 posted on 01/22/2011 2:24:56 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mark Landsbaum
No investigation needed. It has been proven to be a scam from the git-go. Now scamers. Go away.
18 posted on 01/22/2011 2:27:07 PM PST by Nuc 1.1 (Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old North State
Let's let the scientific community clean house, regroup,and check back in with us in 50 years.

AMEN!

And in the mean time the EPA can go pound sand with all their carbon hockus pokus bullshit. Including the E-85 nonsense.

19 posted on 01/22/2011 3:00:05 PM PST by upchuck (When excerpting please use the entire 300 words we are allowed. No more one or two sentence posts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: aflaak

Ping


20 posted on 01/22/2011 3:05:50 PM PST by r-q-tek86 ("It doesn't matter how smart you are if you don't stop and think" - Dr. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mark Landsbaum; IrishCatholic; Whenifhow; scripter; SolitaryMan; mmanager; markomalley; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

21 posted on 01/22/2011 4:05:16 PM PST by steelyourfaith (ObamaCare Death Panels: a Final Solution to the looming Social Security crisis ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents

You are welcome, I am glad you liked it. Roughly it is a break down of the temperature station reliability for global warming research. The more red the piece of pie is the worse the station is. So 64% of stations aren’t very good. If you want to learn more go to the web site listed in the picture.


22 posted on 01/22/2011 4:47:46 PM PST by epithermal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom
almost 70% exhibited built-in monitoring errors that caused them to show temperatures between 2 and five degrees above the actual temperatue, while only 2% exhibited built-in errors that caused them to show temperatures even slightly below the actual temperature.

The errors can go either way. It is true that most of sites have heat bias, but the temperature ratings for errors are not all on the hot side, a 2 to 5 degree cool bias is also possible.

23 posted on 01/22/2011 6:19:06 PM PST by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: epithermal

That raw data doesn’t really say how hot the bias is overall since some of the errors are in the other direction. The main problem is that data hasn’t yet been reviewed and put into a scientific study (a real one, not one by someone biased in either direction).


24 posted on 01/22/2011 6:22:40 PM PST by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
Science is now all about the money. The findings and results always go to the highest bidder. ................ Here in DFW we had a greaqt weatherman, Hareld Taft, who used to beat the computers with his forcasts on a regular bassis. He would look a past simular situations and make his forcast from there. He would tell us what the computers were saying and then tell us why he thought they were wrong. After he passede away all we've gotten is the computer models. By the way Hareld was one of the main forecasters for Ike on the 5th of June 1944.
25 posted on 01/22/2011 6:29:23 PM PST by fella (.He that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough." Pv.28:19')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: epithermal

Mmmmmmmm.... pie.


26 posted on 01/22/2011 7:30:31 PM PST by 69ConvertibleFirebird (I now shriek in horror when I drive by a Target store. Target... Liberals... Word burners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith; Mark Landsbaum; IrishCatholic; Whenifhow; scripter; SolitaryMan; mmanager; ...
Stop Global warming arguments cold.
Cite the :

Milankovitch Glaciation Cycle

It explains how solar radiation affects the Earth as its eccentric orbit drastically changes our distance from the sun over a 100,000 year cycle. It also lays out the parameters and time lines for axial tilt, and the Earth's polar precession. Milankovitch's models correlate very well indeed with known historical data.

Milankovitch published his theory in the 1920s. It is now accepted as fact by astronomers, physicists, astro-physicists, archaeologists, paleontologists, mathematicians, and geographers. It is not accepted by democrats.

See:

How the Sun Affects Climate - Milankovitch Cycles Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation The Milankovitch band Some history of the adoption of the Milankovitch hypothesis (and an alternative) More detail on ... www.scribd.com › Research › Science - Cached - Similar

27 posted on 01/22/2011 10:14:55 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (Wanted: 1 Governor, 1 AG, to keep Obama off 1 state ballot in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: palmer
The errors can go either way. It is true that most of sites have heat bias, but the temperature ratings for errors are not all on the hot side, a 2 to 5 degree cool bias is also possible.

Next you'll be knocking them about that Germans at Pearl Harbor line. I say Forget it...they're rolling!

28 posted on 01/23/2011 12:30:36 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Yeah, and the Milankovitch-alone model doesn’t fit.


29 posted on 01/23/2011 12:31:56 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest
It may be discovered that it’s not possible to know whether or not human activities significantly affect the global weather systems, if an honest effort is made.

Congratulations. You have given the correct answer.

So now both sides of knee-jerks hate you.

30 posted on 01/23/2011 12:33:21 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

If that’s the case I’ll know how Sarah Palin feels.


31 posted on 01/23/2011 2:31:43 AM PST by RoadTest (Religion is no substitute for the relationship God wants with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

“We could at least start with determining whether the planet is warming or cooling, irrespective of human influence. Right now the error bar states we do not have enough accuracy to even determine positive or negative anomaly. Which is why I trust the Floridian Manatees more then I trust the NWO Apes.”

Well put. We’ll never know as long as the scientists are playing politics and FOLLOWING THE MONEY.


32 posted on 01/23/2011 2:41:10 AM PST by RoadTest (Religion is no substitute for the relationship God wants with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

It said error, not bias. At the risk of oversimplifying, root mean squared (RMS) error is the squareroot of the sum of bias squared plus variances, properly weighted.

It the stations are unbiased, as likely to overestimate as underestimate, or if at least the ensemble of stations is unbiased, and the contributions from the various stations properly weighted, then the measurements (if not the conclusions) are valid. If all you have is this ensemble, you can only measure the bias and variance of the stations with respect to the ensemble, there is no “ground truth” to compare things to.

I believe the concern is that the ensemble has a time dependent creep or bias and no way (or at least effort) to compare it to some form of “ground truth”. It is not at all clear what ground truth even means.


33 posted on 01/23/2011 7:57:24 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
Yeah, and the Milankovitch-alone model doesn’t fit.

Quite true, but then I despaired of explaining Sunspot Cycles to Keith Olbermann. Not to mention volcanic activity, etc. ad naus.

Then there's the entire CO2 myth to explain, along with "Carbon footprints.' The Left has succeeded where I and many others have failed. That is, they have succeeded in inextricably mixing up "Man-Made Pollution," and "Climate."

From that point of confusion, it is an easy leap for everyone from the kindergarten through Ph. D. levels, from the man-in-the-street to Presidents, to absolutely believe that man can affect global climate and climate changes.

34 posted on 01/24/2011 7:52:43 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (Wanted: 1 Governor, 1 AG, to keep Obama off 1 state ballot in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents

It says only 10% of the Surface Stations used can be trusted to be accurate to within 1 degree C. The other 90% can’t be trusted to even be within 1 degree or more of being accurate yet they use that data and make ‘warming claims’ down to 1/10 of a degree C. That is nonsense.


35 posted on 01/24/2011 8:31:35 AM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson