Skip to comments.Editorial: Put up or shut up on global warming
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 ...
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.
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.
But I thought all scientists are in agreement on global warming?
But a certain Nobel-anointed ass-clown can’t seem to get the message..
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.
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.
When your only patron is government, your only product is political.
Gosh I LOVE pie charts!! Especially really, really BIG ones. But what the hell does it say? Explain please.
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 âdeniersâ and discredited. Claims that the âscience is settledâ and a âconsensus of scientistsâ 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.
Can’t tell you what it means, its on double secret probation.
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.'"
“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.
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.
And in the mean time the EPA can go pound sand with all their carbon hockus pokus bullshit. Including the E-85 nonsense.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
Next you'll be knocking them about that Germans at Pearl Harbor line. I say Forget it...they're rolling!
Yeah, and the Milankovitch-alone model doesn’t fit.
Congratulations. You have given the correct answer.
So now both sides of knee-jerks hate you.
If that’s the case I’ll know how Sarah Palin feels.
“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.
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.
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.
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.