So does "routine data manipulation" include manipulating data to cover up programing failures that fed you your BS statistics in the first place. You can't say they wern't covering it up they admited to it to eachother in those emails.
Climate Change Junk Scientists are self-destructing.....history repeats itself
- Thread starter XJEEPER
- Start date
So does "routine data manipulation" include manipulating data to cover up programing failures that fed you your BS statistics in the first place. You can't say they wern't covering it up they admited to it to eachother in those emails.
- Location
- Wasatch Range
It's a shell game, a sham, a charade.....it's Socialism. It's been embraced globally because the governments involved have designed their Cap and Tax programs to redistribute the wealth and take a cut to play middle-man.
The cap-and-trade system would create a multibillion-dollar playground that would, once again, create a group of wealthy traders benefiting at the expense of millions of average families—middle to low-income households that would end up paying more for food, energy, and almost everything else they buy.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=475461
All of the money that power companies will have to pay for carbon offsets will come from the end users (you and me) and then go through Blood and Gore's (got a nice ring to it) company. Then Wall St. gets to create an entire derivatives market based solely on trading of said offsets, which will easily be a multi-trillion dollar market, again without any underlying assets.
So how does this benefit the climate again? Not at all really. It's all about the money. The climate is just an excuse to move money from the many to the few.
It's extortion.....it's un-Constitutional.
If our government officials and media weren't so corrupt, they would be exposing this for what it is, a massive tax on the US Citizens, instead of steamrolling the legislation through with little debate.
Here's what is going to bite the world's environmental scientist in the butt.....as scientists, they should have had this data reviewed and validated by a board of peers, not politicians who saw at taxable revenue stream potential.
They intentionally bypassed this process, which not only gives the science community in general a bad rap, but creates an environment of distrust of anything that comes from these scientists in the future.
Remember the fable of "The Boy who cried Wolf"?
The environmental science community as a whole owns this debacle. If they don't come clean, their credibility is destroyed.
Last edited:
heyhar
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- PA (near Poconos)
I worked for a while early in this decade at a small co-gen plant that Williams Energy built here near Hazleton, PA. They purchased three used GE turbine generators from the Peoples Republic of China for approx. $15mil, (new-$15mil apiece) and they were installed on the site of a former coal gassification plant that was already hooked to the grid. We got them running in early summer '02, and they ran on heating oil or natural gas. It's a 'peaking plant' that only runs when there's demand. The rub was they bought what was referred to at the time as pollution credits. And, they overbought on the oil, not enough on the gas, and could legally run on the far dirtier and more costly oil. I haven't been in there for a few years, but it's still in business, and I don't know if things have changed. I guess I saw the beginnings of Cap and Tax. You can pollute more, just pay us for the privelege.
Rod Knee
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Grand Jct., CO
No, routine manipulation does not generally include a cover up. I'm not sure that discussing what statistical measures are employed constitutes an admission of any sort though. I do know that it is a routine and essential practice to calibrate and verify a computer program as a check on its results with hand-cranked results, however.
- Location
- Wasatch Range
Troll.
I'm going to humor your troll attempt, in similitude of the turkey I will be eating tomorrow.
Perhaps you should revisit the post, actually read it this time instead of glossing over it with disdain and rushing to defend Big Al. He lies multiple times in the video....which was my point.
My 11 year old son knows that the Earth's temperature is not, quoting Al here "millions of degrees, a few kilometers down".
How about his one........ "we've figured out how to do the drilling with new drillbits that don't melt in that heat"......we have a metal that can withstand millions of degrees?
Really? This, from the expert on Global Warming?
Here's some facts that will make your bird extra-crispy.......
The United States Department of Energy says there is no way to know exactly what the earth's temperature is at the core, but many scientists believe it's between 3000 to 5000 Celsius.
Tantalum hafnium carbide has the highest melting point of any metal known to man. It melts at 4215 degrees Celsius or 7619 degrees Fahrenheit. That's not even close to the several million degrees that Gore claimed these drill bits could survive.
So here's what has me confused.....Al Gore, Global Warming expert, is repeatedly making statments that are false.....mistakes you say?
Wouldn't you want to know the facts and be able to state them with accuracy, since you are selling yourself as an "expert"?
Took my 11yr old son (who has yet to receive a Nobel Peace Prize) less than 5 minutes to find the facts, debunking Al Gore's statements.
Maybe......could it be......that Al doesn't know how to gain access to all this data?
Perhaps he could try that cool, technological wonder that he invented over a decade ago....it's called "The Internet".
Rod Knee, I'm gonna assume that you're not an idiot .....perhaps it's the tryptophan in the air that's affected your ability to apply logic and reason.
Al Gore needs a cell in the Ponzi section, he can bunk with Madoff.
JNickel101
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Alamogordo, NM
You could simultaneously burn all of the coal, oil and natural gas on the planet during an "Ice Age" and it still wouldn't affect the climate.
No, I have no facts or research to base this upon - but I'd bet it was true....because I know the difference between climate and weather. And I'm not naive....and I understand how the sun's energy output fluctuates with solar cycles.....
Global Climate Change followers should change their name to Global Weather Change OR should just realize that whatever humans are doing, it has about a 0.002% effect on the Earth's climate. Their entire agenda is to elicit fear in society and make money off of those fears.
You know what the #1 greenhouse gas is? I'll give you a hint...it isn't CO2....or any form of Nitrous/Nitric Oxide....or Methane.....it's water vapor.
Do you know where most of the CO2 is on the planet? In the oceans.
What happens when the sun warms the planet? Ocean water warms....and loses its ability to hold dissolved CO2. So when you have a solar warming cycle the planet heats up....ever so slightly....the ocean's warm up....releasing their CO2....so when you measure the CO2 in the atmosphere during a warming cycle, it looks elevated. Even though you're talking about parts per million, and like 0.0004% of the total atmospheric composition.....and in the grand scheme of things, doesn't mean sh!t b/c water vapor has more of a concentration than CO2 or any other "greenhouse gas"....
Last edited:
ZomBrady
Chubby Chaser Extraordinaire
- Location
- Albuquerque
Do you really believe that 'we' have no impact on this planet? To refuse that we play a part in the natural order of things is silly. Time and time again, we see our impact on ecological webs. Just look at improvements we've made to our environment over the last 30 years with the Clean Air Act. The forest throughout North America were being negatively impacted by sulfuric acid produced by high sulfur coal and high sulfur vehicle fuels. Now they are on the rebound and sulfuric acid generation is at an all time low. 'We' did that. Our actions effected our environment.
As for global warming, I still believe that our actions impact the planet. The question to be answered is to what degree do we impact global warming? I also believe that global warming isn't nearly the catastrophe that Al Gore makes it out to be. Hell, I'm simply not convinced that it is a problem at all.
JNickel101
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Alamogordo, NM
HastaHastaHasta
I will give you "acid rain", smog, and nothing else.....
Pollution is not "global climate change" though....
- Location
- Wasatch Range
Being responsible and a total tranformation are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. I'm all for being responsible stewards of our planet.
This is not what Al Gore, Cap and Trade and the IPCC is about.
Last edited:
JNickel101
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Alamogordo, NM
x2, you guys are mixing in ecology and pollution with climate.....completely different topics. I'm all for pollution controls and taking care of the planet. Just quit attaching a bogus "science" to it to try and drum up more fear and extort more money.
ZomBrady
Chubby Chaser Extraordinaire
- Location
- Albuquerque
Won't argue that in the least. You are absolutely right.
umm, no.
Those three things are inextricably intertwined together. Look at the Great Dust Bowl of the 20's and 30's and tell me that it wasn't a climatic issue that was generated by human activities. Simply put, we are part of this planet and our actions have an impact on it. There's just not an argument there as far as I am concerned.
JNickel101
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Alamogordo, NM
Weather and human activities....big difference....
Dust Bowl lasted for about 6 years....not two decades....
Dust Bowl lasted for about 6 years....not two decades....
joe_peters
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Grants Pass, OryGun
The Dust Bowl was an ecological disaster that resulted from a human activity, while the wind would be climatic we didn't create it.
x2 The dust bowl was also caused by poor farming techniques that allowed for large amounts of erosion. Of course the winds and the draught worsened it, but it was partially caused by man.
Now if you want to talk non-man-made disasters, talk about ice ages, volcanic eruptions, killer asteroids...
arty:
ZomBrady
Chubby Chaser Extraordinaire
- Location
- Albuquerque
No one said it lasted two decades, I implied that the Dust Bowl started in the 20's.
You don't believe that the lack of vegetation and ground cover effected the severity of the drought? We may have not 'created' the drought, but we did effect and worsen the drought. I don't believe that it is hard to see that human activities have impacted local climates and environments, so it's not a stretch to see that our activities could impact things on a global scale.
I just don't think it's a huge impact, but I'm not going to deny or ignore that we have an impact.
Rod Knee
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Grand Jct., CO
XJeeper, I don’t think you can show me anyplace I’ve tried to defend Al Gore. I’ve thought he was a dolt since the 2000 pres debates. I don’t think he was lying in that video, I think he was displaying his ignorance of technical details, which you were right in pointing out the significance of. But your initial post was vague at best as to what your objections to the video were, unless of course it was intended for a clairvoyant readership.
JNickel, I think you raise a good hypothetical point regarding seawater/atmospheric CO2 exchange. Don’t know that it holds up over the last few decades given the isotopically identified anthropomorphic CO2 source, warming, and static solar level of irradiance, though.
MPSlayer, you seem to have figured out the full significance of those CRU emails you posted up, so I’m sure you are able to succinctly detail their full context, which of course is essential in determining their meaning . But I think I’d be a bit cautious at drawing conclusions from a handful of emails in which certain words are suggested to be pejorative rather than jargon out what are probably hundreds or thousands of emails. For example, how do we know that “containing” the putative MWP by using 2000 years of data rather than 1000 years of data wasn’t simply a reflection of the fact that the beginning of the MWP was more than 1000 years ago, but less than 2000 years ago? My dictionary indicates “contain” to be synonymous with “include”. Not sure I’d necessarily assume that suggesting the inclusion of data prior to, during, and after the MWP to sufficiently bracket the MWP to be so dastardly.
Don't know that removing (filtering/smoothing/hiding) a non-temperature signal necessarily indicates malfeasance if temperature is the parameter of interest. After all, we all filter data (and a massive amount of it) every time we do a google search. But then again, I don't know the full context of the statement as you apparently do.
JNickel, I think you raise a good hypothetical point regarding seawater/atmospheric CO2 exchange. Don’t know that it holds up over the last few decades given the isotopically identified anthropomorphic CO2 source, warming, and static solar level of irradiance, though.
MPSlayer, you seem to have figured out the full significance of those CRU emails you posted up, so I’m sure you are able to succinctly detail their full context, which of course is essential in determining their meaning . But I think I’d be a bit cautious at drawing conclusions from a handful of emails in which certain words are suggested to be pejorative rather than jargon out what are probably hundreds or thousands of emails. For example, how do we know that “containing” the putative MWP by using 2000 years of data rather than 1000 years of data wasn’t simply a reflection of the fact that the beginning of the MWP was more than 1000 years ago, but less than 2000 years ago? My dictionary indicates “contain” to be synonymous with “include”. Not sure I’d necessarily assume that suggesting the inclusion of data prior to, during, and after the MWP to sufficiently bracket the MWP to be so dastardly.
Don't know that removing (filtering/smoothing/hiding) a non-temperature signal necessarily indicates malfeasance if temperature is the parameter of interest. After all, we all filter data (and a massive amount of it) every time we do a google search. But then again, I don't know the full context of the statement as you apparently do.
joe_peters
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Grants Pass, OryGun
No one said it lasted two decades, I implied that the Dust Bowl started in the 20's.
You don't believe that the lack of vegetation and ground cover effected the severity of the drought? We may have not 'created' the drought, but we did effect and worsen the drought. I don't believe that it is hard to see that human activities have impacted local climates and environments, so it's not a stretch to see that our activities could impact things on a global scale.
I just don't think it's a huge impact, but I'm not going to deny or ignore that we have an impact.
If you think man created the WIND, then please don't breed. :roflmao:
Yes, man contributed to the dust bowl. NO, man did not create the WIND, unless you count burrito wind generation in the equation.
READ what I wrote. :laugh2:
Similar threads
