Prev: Can we detect a blueshift of �c?
Next: Albert Einstein didn't accept black holes or the idea of totally collapsed stars
From: Eric Gisin on 25 Apr 2010 09:41
"josephus" <dogbird(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ueudncx92sOrfk3WnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com...
> Eric Gisin wrote:
>> http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/854-clmategate-and-the-crisis-of-climate-alarmism.html
>
> right and his disproven paper too. the problem here is that IPCC is science and not really deep
> political. certain real science will be used by govenments. that is why it was created in the
> first place. so denier sentiments are just that, opinions and worth the stuff in my outhouse.
> (or catbox) it is necessary to have evidence. I have noticed that evidence is specifically
> ignored. they dont have the skill set to read the papers, they dont believe the stuff we
> translate for them. they are lame and think they are sceptics because they are ignorant and dont
> know anything. I have actully heard people say that they dont need no education, they have
> street smarts.
>
The IPCC "science and not really deep political"! What drugs are you on?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/14/ipcc-ar4-also-gets-a-failing-grade-on-21-chapters/
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/IPCC-report-card.php

14 04 2010

While Oxburgh writes a 5 page book report that most college professors would likely reject due yo
incompleteness, we have this report from Donna Laframboise of Toronto and a team of citizen
auditors. The mission? Determine how much of AR4 met IPCC's own standards for peer review by
reviewing every reference in the report to determine if it comes from peer reviewed literature,
grey literature, or if they "simply made stuff up", like glacier melt dates.

She writes:

21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations' Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F on a report card
we are releasing today. Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,531 sources cited in
the report - finding 5,587 to be not peer-reviewed.

Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific
journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, working papers, student
theses, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is
often called "grey literature."

We've been told this report is the gold standard. We've been told it's 100 percent peer-reviewed
science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of a scientific
journal.

Based on the grading system used in US schools, 21 chapters in the IPCC report receive an F (they
cite peer-reviewed sources less than 60% of the time), 4 chapters get a D, and 6 get a C. There are
also 5 Bs and 8 As.

In November, IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri disparaged non-peer-reviewed research in an
interview with the Times of India (see the end of the article):

IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible
publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.

Between Oxburgh's failure to write a credible report and this obvious failure of IPCC to follow
their own rules, is it any wonder why people are beginning to laugh at the "robustness" oft touted
in climate science?

From: spudnik on 25 Apr 2010 17:38
ah, "21 chapters used less than 3/5 peer-reviewed studies;"
wow. keep in mind that
the other more-than-3/5ths, reviewed studies, are all predetermined
to go with the "concensus" of the misnomer of "global" warming
(per Ahrrenius's unmodeled "glass house" at some lattitude
of Earth). thanks!

thus:
so, you're saying that photons (rocks o'light) are not waves
in a medium (or "vacuum"), but is aether, itself?... wow.

> EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> diminishes by L/c2."

thus:
all "photons" are readily absorbed by the correct tuner,
generally a change of orbital of an electron, I suppose;
all "photons" "go" at the speed of propagation of lightwaves,
depending upon the index of refraction of the medium
(given that there is really no vacuum "a la Pascal").

thus:
but, dood, what in Hell do *you* mean,
by "aether & matter are different states
of the same material" -- why do atoms and
electrons & antiatoms need "an other state"
of themselves?

thus:
Skeptics were just another Greek cult under the Roman Empire;
Peripatetics, Gnostics, Stoics, Epicureans etc.
ad vomitorium. I recall also recently reading that Justice
Kennedy had come out for WS in some moot court, but
that he later came to Oxford ... most likely, because
it serves his oligarchical worldview (or, it was Scalia).

I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but
I recently found a text that really '"makes the case,"
once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and
others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade,
capNtrade e.g.).

> On the contrary, others include Justices Scalia, O’Connor,
> Blackmun and Powell, as the WSJ article noted. Only two current
> Justices (Breyer and Kennedy) openly support the Stratford man.

thus:
what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic;
his real "proof" is _1599_;
the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up --
especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.....

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
From: Rob Dekker on 26 Apr 2010 05:53

"kdthrge(a)yahoo.com" <kdthrge(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c73b2b1c-dd8b-4ea1-acb3-a94692112208(a)i12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 22, 11:47 pm, josephus <dogb...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
> > actually the tree rings have to do with tree resources, and water and
> > nutrients. that will increase and decrease the rings. they also change
> > from season to season. but that is not the same thing as temperature.
> > can you point to any paper or even algorithm that will translate tree
> > rings into temperature? I have been looking and have not found any.
> >
> This only means Mann's funding should be immediately revoked. And the
> IPCC should apolgize and rescind any and all tree ring studies.
>
> And it means any graphs that show correlation are false.
>
> KD

As much as you would like Mann's 'funding' to be revoked, or as much as you
would like the IPCC to apologize, or even as much as you would like all tree
ring studies to be recinded,
I would like to point out that you did not pay attention.

Joshephus correctly points out that EVEN if you ignore all tree ring data,
that graphs for the recent warming (the Hockey Stick graph) is still the
same. That statement is supported by hundreds of other proxies and different
methods such as in Rutherford et al (2005) or Moberg et al (2005).
Moreover, if we do not know exactly what determines the width of tree rings
and to which extend, then it seems that we need to investigate that MORE,
not less !

Either way, the fact is, the recent warming as observed over the 20th
century is unprecedented, and explained with our scientific knowledge of
what GHGs such as CO2 do to the temperature of a planet. Moreover, denying
this science is ignorent and actually quite dangerous, since the
consequences of ignoring the damage that we do could easily destroy life
diversity on this planet, and in the long run even bring our civilisation to
an end. And this is the only planet we have....

Rob


From: Surfer on 26 Apr 2010 13:20
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:30:06 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
<ericg(a)nospammail.net> wrote:

>http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/854-clmategate-and-the-crisis-of-climate-alarmism.html
>
>Thursday, 22 April 2010 09:35 Richard S Lindzen
>
>In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing thousands of emails and
>other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain.
>How this file got into the public domain is still uncertain, but the emails, whose authenticity is
>no longer in question, provided a view into the world of climate research that was revealing and
>even startling.
>
>In what has come to be known as "climategate," one could see unambiguous evidence of the unethical
>suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data manipulation.
>
Its not clear to me how serious those claims are.

However, evidence for global warming is also available from other
sources. Eg.

Arctic sea ice extent is decreasing
(See graph at right)
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
Larger image here
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.pn


Global sea level rise has accelerated
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

Sea level rise is associated with the thermal expansion of sea water
due to climate warming and widespread melting of land ice.
The average rate of sea level rise has increased as follows:

1870 - 1990 1.7 mm/year
1990 - 2009 3.26 mm/year


Giant Antarctic glacier is thinning
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090814100105.htm

In addition:

The global lower troposphere temperature anomaly is increasing
http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/125_2.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/nasa.gif

This shows that since 1995 the fluctuations lie almost entirely above
the zero axis, whereas several decades ago they were evenly balanced
above and below the axis.



From: Androcles on 26 Apr 2010 13:37

"Surfer" <no(a)spam.net> wrote in message
news:6eibt5pjfvopb4avb17s33h3lsc2j3usjj(a)4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:30:06 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
> <ericg(a)nospammail.net> wrote:
>
>>http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/854-clmategate-and-the-crisis-of-climate-alarmism.html
>>
>>Thursday, 22 April 2010 09:35 Richard S Lindzen
>>
>>In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing
>>thousands of emails and
>>other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East
>>Anglia in Great Britain.
>>How this file got into the public domain is still uncertain, but the
>>emails, whose authenticity is
>>no longer in question, provided a view into the world of climate research
>>that was revealing and
>>even startling.
>>
>>In what has come to be known as "climategate," one could see unambiguous
>>evidence of the unethical
>>suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data
>>manipulation.
>>
> Its not clear to me how serious those claims are.
>
> However, evidence for global warming is also available from other
> sources.

Evidence for chocolate eggs is also available from other sources. The
question is, did the Easter Bunny lay them?

Its not clear to me how serious your claims are.




First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Can we detect a blueshift of �c?
Next: Albert Einstein didn't accept black holes or the idea of totally collapsed stars