Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘politics and science’

I feel I must explain that I feel as strongly as anyone about truely being wise with our environment and resources.

I’m as big a fan as anyone of solar, wind, and water generated power, etc. Not only for the benefits to the planet, but the independence and self sufficiency that creates! That’s just fun. 🙂

I also believe that being wise with our resources includes accurate research and gov policies that reflect that.  And the whole global warming thing has not been that.  The exposed letters prove it as well as the documentary below.

This is a Finish documentary about Global Warming. It includes research by Finish scientists who’s research was literally flipped upside down to fit the model desired (a fundamentally flawed theory; see below) instead of reflect the accurate and far more thorough results they got. There was actually a “formal” apology about it. I bet you never heard about it though!

Watch the video to see more.

This whole topic reminds me of those researching Venus, only that is much worse. Proponents of different theories use the exact same data to say it supports what they believe is true; even though they are completely opposite. There are few researchers in that arena that are objective about it.

This topic is only so huge because there are people worried about the government policies that will be created, and I think that is a very valid concern.

People are going to be making government policy on something that is unclear?

In time peer review might work things out, but who’s going to reverse the gov policy if it is wrong?

I think that is where people start getting freaked out about this whole thing. They don’t want something put upon them if it isn’t appropriate.

And also John Daly (a climate scientist) said this in 2001:

“Take this from first principles.

A tree only grows on land. That excludes 70% of the earth covered by
water. A tree does no grow on ice. A tree does not grow in a desert. A
tree does not grow on grassland-savannahs. A tree does not grow in
alpine areas. A tree does not grow in the tundra

We are left with perhaps 15% of the planet upon which forests
grow/grew. That does not make any studies from tree rings global, or
even hemispheric.

The width and density of tree rings is dependent upon the following
variables which cannot be reliably separated from each other.

sunlight – if the sun varies, the ring will vary. But not at night of
course.
cloudiness – more clouds, less sun, less ring.
pests/disease – a caterpillar or locust plague will reduce
photosynthesis
access to sunlight – competition within a forest can disadvantage or
advantage some trees.
moisture/rainfall – a key variable. Trees do not prosper in a drought
even if there’s a heat wave.
snow packing in spring around the base of the trees retards growth
temperature – finally!

The tree ring is a composite of all these variables, not merely of
temperature. Therefore on the 15% of the planet covered by trees, their
rings do not and cannot accurately record temperature in isolation from
the other environmental variables.

In my article on Greening Earth Society on the Hockey Stick, I point to
other evidence which contradicts Mann’s theory. The Idso’s have produced
more of that evidence, and a new article on Greening Earth has
`unearthed’ even more.

Mann’s theory simply does not stack up. But that was not the key issue.

Anyone can put up a dud theory from time to time. What is at issue is
the uncritical zeal with which the industry siezed on the theory before
its scientific value had been properly tested. In one go, they tossed
aside dozens of studies which confirmed the existence of the MWE and LIA
as global events, and all on the basis of tree rings – a proxy which has
all the deficiencies I have stated above.

The worst thing I can say about any paper such as his is that it is `bad
science’. Legal restraint prevents me going further. But in his case,
only those restraints prevent me going *much* further.

Cheers

John Daly”

 

Here is a link to over 450 papers that disprove that Co2 emmissions will be “catastrophic” or that man made global warming even exists.

And a link that shows that the summit was/is a failure anyway! Complete with picture. Obama doesn’t look to happy. hehehe

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

So what do you think about this?

I’ve been pissed for years about JUNK science that politicians use to push their agendas through.

Now, thanks to some one with computer knowledge we have proof.

Take special note of the link where you can actually read the letters and decide for yourself!

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

And if you don’t want to read through them all, there are accurate excerpts/summaries available here:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

What follows are some comments from people who sounded intelligent enough. 😉  

Comments below:

This is not about a “slew of hacked emails rolling around the Internet,” nor is this a “fuss over the emails.” This is about obfuscation, non-cooperation, emails that hint at a cover-up, emails that clearly demonstrate that an agenda had overcome all scientific rationale and collaboration as they also show that scientists trying to twist and change data and prevent other viewpoints from being published. This is a very sad day for objective science and truly calls into question the theory of global warming and certainly the theory that temperature changes are man-made.
Let’s look at the facts First, There has been concern about the data presented by the IPCC for years–and this is the organization that not only Europe but the United States relies on. As a result of this concern (as well as the admission that much of the original temperature data was “lost” in the l980’s), all the primary scientific research was requested by outsiders. Yet requests were refused, so additional demands were made of the IPCC & CRU under British Freedom of Information Act. The CRU still stonewalled–a criminal offense–and then someone hacked into their site and found these terribly destructive (to the CRU scientists) emails. Secondly, although the mainstream media, including apparently US News has refused to print these emails because they were hacked/stolen (which certainly never prevented the NY Times and others publishing military or state secrets that damage this country), the newspapers in Britain and Europe have. You can see them by visiting the Telegraph (London) website at Telegraph.co.uk and searching their site. They are hugely damaging.
Thirdly, in 2003 Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre exposed the fundamental flaw in the “hockey stick” which was the image that first created the fuel for the global warming campaign; the one Al Gore still uses. This created more concerns about the very credibility of the CRU’s work–and now the CRU (Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia) emails have exposed yet another crack–even more more incriminating–were email messages from climate change scientists asking for scientific data to be deleted so it could not be turned over! You would have thought US News would have found this somewhat interesting, but the writer of this article was obviously distracted or was not alert.
Fourth, still other emails show that “scientists” worked diligently to manipulate the data through “tortious computer programmes” (source: Telegraph) to lower past temperatures and to “adjust” more recent temperatures upwards “in order to convey the impression of accelerated warming.” And the problems go on. There are other emails that show the scientists’ desperation at their difficulty in getting the results to come out the way that they wish them to be. Respected scientists on both sides of the climate change debate are now calling for an investigation.
There must be an investigation–but will it happen?
Another commentor wrote:

Journalistic Integrity
I can’t believe it took US News a WEEK to come up with this drivel. Science, like journalism is now suspect and politically driven. The science of man made global warming is very unsettled, and at least climategate let us peer into the computer modeling and statistical analysis that these “Scientists” were using. As a master’s level economist, we have legitimate peer review and legitimate statistical modeling.
These guys make mistakes in disciplines that they do not understand (statistics, computer programming) and then refuse to have people within that discipline review their work. Tsk, tsk tsk. We certainly shouldn’t be coughing up trillions of dollars for “Work” that should at least be tested in an open an honest forum. These guys couldn’t pass a bachelor’s level statistic or programming 400 level class.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/11/30/global-warming-e-mails-scandal-show-scientists-may-have-cooked-the-facts.html

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/11/30/hacked-e-mails-give-inhofe-fuel-for-climate-change-debate.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a41:g4:r29:c0.000000:b29147128:z0&s_cid=loomia:mccain-key-to-gop-support-for-obamas-afghanistan-plan

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/6693394/We-pay-a-high-price-for-misinterpreting-evidence-about-climate-change.html

Read Full Post »