"Uhhh....yeaaaaah."
Well, guess what.
It turns out that now the IPCC is apologizing because a critical part of that report was bogus.
As in BOGUS.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
In the report, the IPCC claimed that the Himalayan glaciers were melting at such a fast pace that by 2035, they would disappear. In that report, they relied on a telephone conversation with an Indian scientist who is disowning statements accredited to him in the report. In addition, they overestimated the size of the glaciers by a few hundred thousand square kilometers.
Oh, and that year 2035? Actually, it was a typo. What they really meant to say was 2350!!!
And here's the kicker. This was the report that resulted in these boobs getting a Nobel Prize!!
And Al Gore?
Unavailable for comment
But this gets even better. In the past week, I have posted about the head of the California Air Resources Board, radical environmentalist Mary D Nichols, who hired a guy named Hien Tran to do a study on the connection between diesel particulate matter in the air and premature deaths. Based on this guy's fraudulent study, California has passed a regulation that is forcing diesel truck owners to re-do their engines at a cost of thousands of dollars and jobs as well. Turns out Mr Tran had a false resume and holds a PHD from a diploma mill in London operated by a US fugitive on the lam for serial child molestation charges. Nichols kept that bit of info hidden from her colleagues on the board as they passed the new regulation.
So now, listen below as Nichols appears on a panel in September 2008 with none other than UN Environmental head Rajendra Pachauri, one of the major actors at Copenhagen, and who accepted the Nobel Prize on behalf of the IPCC. Listen as they dismiss global warming skeptics as "flat-earthers".
http://odeo.com/episodes/23331982-Pachauri-and-Nichols-Are-Humans-to-Blame-for-Global-Warming
It's called "connecting the dots". Two frauds, who have now been linked to phony studies, sitting together and calling skeptics, "flat-earthers".
UN's Rajendra Pachauri-You be the judge.
Still believe in global warming?
"Uhhhhh........"
31 comments:
So, a study that was never subjected to peer-review turns out to be full of holes? That's not too surprising.
What about the studies that have been subject to peer review? Are you going to take those ones on? That would be a bit more of a challenge, wouldn't it?
"peer review". What that means in this case is one bunch of frauds covering for another. If I am not mistaken the CARB peer review was done by a dozen or so folks, 6 of whom participated in the study themselves. How's that for peer review? They reviewed their own work!!
Gary, I'm sorry, but you're embarrassing yourself with that definition of "peer review". What you describe is not what it is, and your response tells me that you don't even know what "peer review" means. (I'm sure that you'll insist that you do though, even though it's spectacularly obvious that you don't.)
It is the peer review process that makes all scientific findings possible. If you're going to mock it, then stop going to the doctor, stop using a computer, stop driving your car, and go find a cave and live a hunter/gatherer existence using only stones and spears.
What I can't help but notice is that it was the very same scientists who were behind the warning who stepped forward to fix the mistake. It wasn't the global warming deniers like yourselves who noticed it - mainly because all you guys can do is throw eggs and make fun of Al Gore without ever taking the time to understand the basic fundamentals of the scientific process.
But of course, I will be the bad guy for pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about.
Anybody can have an opinion, but few take the time to have an informed opinion.
OK Lance, Let's start over.
As I understand it, a scientist's research findings are subjected to other scientists who look over the research and decide if they think it is valid. Like when I wrote my books, they were reviewed and critiqued by other experts in the field. Sound right?
Exactly. I quote from the article: "The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis."
And don't you find it at all interesting that this error has been pointed out by people who support the idea of man-made global warming? Doesn't that go against the idea that there's some sort of conspiracy on their part to hide information that might weaken their stance?
This thing, just like those emails, is hardly a slam-dunk. It reminds me of creationists who point out evolutionary frauds - even though those frauds were exposed by evolutionary scientists in the first place.
Real science means that you don't start with a conclusion. You look at the entire body of evidence, and I know that the evidence for global warming goes far beyond that one article. It's like finding one error in the dictionary and then claiming that the entire English language is a hoax.
Lance,
So you still believe in this GW stuff, do ya?
So Lance,
It appears that I do know what peer review is, right?
So, if I publish a study that says the moon is made of limberger cheese and I get a few other guys to say that's right and it's all published in the Limberger Cheese Review, that means it's all up to standard, right?
How many of these exposes and scandals does it take before we come to the conclusion that at the very least, this GW stuff is up to serious question and doubt?
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that this is all a conspiracy by the one-world socialist crowd to accomplish what the Marxists couldn't do.
Laugh if you will, but prove me wrong.
PS
By the way, the study that had all the bunk about the Himalayas was subjected to a peer review of sorts.
It got a Nobel prize.
Hmmm...let's see...
So you still believe in this GW stuff, do ya?
I explained to you before my feelings on this issue. My opinion is a bit nuanced, something that conservatives don't seem to like. I consider myself a skeptic, but not a denier. I care about the facts, and I judge each argument on its own merits. I found this particular argument to be pretty weak.
It appears that I do know what peer review is, right?
I was about to say yes and issue an apology, but then you went and wrote this:
So, if I publish a study that says the moon is made of limberger cheese and I get a few other guys to say that's right and it's all published in the Limberger Cheese Review, that means it's all up to standard, right?
Ummm...no. Peer review means that you put it out there for any scientist to review it - not just the ones who are likely to agree with you. From there, it either gets some support or it gets shot down.
This article that you refer to in this post was never properly peer-reviewed in the first place. For Pete's sakes, Gary, did you even read the article that you linked on this post? What's next? Are you going to start tackling a first grader's report on Global Warming?
How many of these exposes and scandals does it take before we come to the conclusion that at the very least, this GW stuff is up to serious question and doubt?
You mean how many of these lame non-stories will it take? I already think that GW, just like anything, is up to serious question. The problem is, I'm not seeing a whole lot of serious questions. I'm just seeing meaningless, vacuous talking points like this.
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that this is all a conspiracy by the one-world socialist crowd to accomplish what the Marxists couldn't do.
Gary, no matter how much you hem and haw and later backtrack with your specious "I've always said that when it comes to Global Warming, we don't know the truth" statements, you made up your mind on this a long time ago. I believe that you could start having to swim to work and you'd still be calling it a hoax.
As for the latter part of your statement, I don't even know what to say about that. Are you sure that it's not a conspiracy on the part of the Freemasons or the Illuminati? Maybe it's a secret cabal of pagan gods. Perhaps Odin is tired of the fact that Jesus has stolen the spotlight, and he's trying to cool the Earth so he can bring about Ragnarok.
Laugh if you will, but prove me wrong.
I tell you what. Go ahead and prove my Odin/Ragnarok theory wrong, and then I'll use the same method to prove you wrong, okay? (Let me save you some time: it's impossible to prove a negative - a basic rule of logic. The onus is upon you to prove that your little "theory" is more than just paranoid delusion, not for me to prove that it isn't.)
By the way, the study that had all the bunk about the Himalayas was subjected to a peer review of sorts.
Yeah, sure, if you change the meaning of the term "peer review" it most certainly was. If you use the actual definition, then not so much. Again, I have to wonder if you even read the article that you posted.
It got a Nobel prize.
That study got the Nobel Prize? What? The IPCC got the prize, and from what I understand, it was hardly based on that one report alone. But still, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
And again, I'd like to point out that it was climatologists who still accept man-made global warming who noticed and corrected this error. Why would they do this if it's part of this socialist, Marxist conspiracy that you think it is? That doesn't even make any sense!
Lance,
I maintain the before we turn the whole world upside-down in the name of GW, the burden of proof is on the GW crowd, not my side. Doesn't that make sense.
And who are Odin and Ragnarok or whoever they are?
Anyway, I thought I's put up a little ditty on peer review and see if you like it.
And who are Odin and Ragnarok or whoever they are?
It doesn't matter. I was just picking something that's as ridiculous as what you said.
Here's the thing:
I don't know if man-made global warming is real or not. But the current scientific consensus seems to be that it's a very strong possibility.
I'm usually a fairly liberal guy. But when it comes to the Earth, I'm conservative. I know we can currently function at this temperature. I'm not sure what will happen if that temperature rises, but a lot of people far smarter and more well-versed than I am say that it could be very, very bad. I'm not sure what their motivation is to make this up. How is it "Marxist" to want to raise fuel efficiency standards and curb emissions?
On the other hand, you have conservatives who aren't scientists who oppose any measures to curb warming. Why? For two reasons, as far as I can tell. They fear it will harm industry, and they really, really hate Al Gore.
What it comes down to for me is this: What's the worst-case scenario if either side is wrong?
If the climatologists are wrong, we've increased fuel efficiency, learned to harness alternate forms of energy, and cut down on CO2 in our atmosphere. Some industries might be hurt slightly, but other, greener ones would rise up to take their place. The best companies will adapt to the new standards. The strongest survive. Capitalism.
But what if GW deniers are wrong? We're talking cataclysmic events. Sea waters rising over populated areas, disease, famine, drought, species extinction.
That seems like a lot to risk just because you hate Al Gore.
Nolan,
It seems to me what you are saying is that we should do all these measures because GW may be a reality. It is more than just fuel efficiency, finding alternative sources of energy and improving the atmosphere. I too would like to do all those things. It goes much farther. It involves massive redistribution of wealth and a dismantling of our whole system-and yes including capitalism. I suspect that is what this world-wide movement is all about, bringing the US down to the level of the rest of the world and destroying capitalism.
And I do not hate Al Gore. I don't hate anybody.
It involves massive redistribution of wealth and a dismantling of our whole system-and yes including capitalism.
How do you figure this? What evidence do you have to make such a bold assertion?
You're just making stuff up!
Lance,
Did you not follow the whole Copenhagen Conference story? No redistribution of wealth? That was one of the platforms of the conference. Billions every year to the 3rd world to "help them adjust to more environmental ways". You think I made that up?
As for trying to dismantle capitalism, how many dots does it take for you to connect? The measures these people want adopted (including our present administration) would cripple our economic system. The UN climate people wanted -and still want to be the ones in charge of running this whole new world environmental order.
I don't even know where to start, so I'll just leave it alone.
Ok, let me understand this:
Your contention is that the vast majority of the world's scientists, including many from the U.S., have hatched this Global Warming theory as a way to destroy capitalism, and specifically, the U.S. They are aided by powerful American leaders, both Democrat and Republican. Their motivation: A vast communist conspiracy.
Yet you would like to take many steps that they suggest to curb warming. Why support these Marxists in any way? If it's a hoax, it's a hoax!
Nolan,
I would take steps to wean us off foreighn oil. Drill in Alaska, for example, and off our coasts. Improve gas sufficiency? Sure, why not?
As for the Copenhagen crowd, forget it.
Statrt adding up the bad research, E Anglia, this latest fiasco with the Himalayas. What I say is let's be sure what the situation really is before we turn things upside down.
AS I have told Lance many times. I don't know what the truth is and neither does he or you-or Al Gore.
But yes, I am increasingly leaning toward hoax and I think the target is to cut America down to size and bring down capitalism, I could be wrong, but that's what I suspect.
I think we will all know the answer within a few years.
To clarify, you just agreed you were "leaning toward" this theory:
"The vast majority of the world's scientists, including many from the U.S., have hatched this Global Warming theory as a way to destroy capitalism, and specifically, the U.S. They are aided by powerful American leaders, both Democrat and Republican. Their motivation: A vast communist conspiracy."
I'll be honest, Gary. I figured once you saw that in print, you'd realize how batshit insane it sounded, and try to mollify it a bit.
But no. You stuck to your illogical, paranoid conspiracy theory. You did so on the same day you (rightfully) mocked another lunatic conspiracy theory about the Jews and 9/11. Your inability to break from dogmatic ideology would be amusing if it weren't so ignorant and potentially harmful to society.
Here's the funny thing:
If Sean Hannity (or whomever your favorite conservative talking head is) had made "An Inconvenient Truth" during the Clinton years, you would be on board. As long as something fits into your definition of "conservative," you'll support it. If it doesn't, then it's all a sham. If Obama says it's raining, you'd argue that it's actually God spitting on the Earth (probably because he's mad about something that commie/socialist was doing). Conversely, everything Reagan ever did was genius.
Do I have it about right?
One more thing: How does drilling for more oil help us toward "finding alternative sources of energy and improving the atmosphere" as you suggest?
And you keep using this phrase: "Turning things upside down." What, specifically, has Obama (or the state of California, or any American authority) proposed that would end capitalism as we know it?
Nolan,
You have a point so let me clarify. I think in the short term, we have to find our own oil rather than be dependent on forewign countries who are unstable or don't like us. That means drilling. Unfortunately, who stands in our way? The Environmentalists who have the Dems in their pocket.
As for alternative sources of energy- I'm for it. If you can invent a car that runs on water, I'm with you. But that's long-term. We are not there yet.
Turning things upside down: By that I refer to taking steps that would dismantle America's superiority in industry, commerce, business, ingenuity, science etc.
The Copenhagen agreement as desired, would have largely done that. As for Obama, he is indeed trying to turn things upside down-he is trying to build a massive increase in govt control over our lives. The banks, the car companies, the pork stimulous bill and of course health care-one-sixth of our economy. It is only the public that is standing in his way.
"The environmentalists have the Dems in their pocket."
Tree-hugging hippies have more financial clout than oil and car companies? More crazy conspiracies...
No, Nolan, you have it completely wrong. First of all, you give me a quote that I know nothing about and tell me that I agree with it.
"The vast majority of the world's scientists, including many from the U.S., have hatched this Global Warming theory as a way to destroy capitalism, and specifically, the U.S. They are aided by powerful American leaders, both Democrat and Republican. Their motivation: A vast communist conspiracy."
Those are not my words. I don't know who said them. Don't hang me with them.
And don't think I go in lock step with the Sean Hannitys of the world. If you go through the archives, you will see where I blasted Rush Limbaugh for something he said about Haiti. Same for pat Robertson. There are also criticisms of other conservatives and Republicans to be found in my archives. My attitudes were framed before I ever heard of Hannity or Limbaugh.
I wrote it; you agreed with it. Follow along, please:
I wrote:
"Ok, let me understand this:
Your contention is that the vast majority of the world's scientists, including many from the U.S., have hatched this Global Warming theory as a way to destroy capitalism, and specifically, the U.S. They are aided by powerful American leaders, both Democrat and Republican. Their motivation: A vast communist conspiracy."
In response, you wrote:
"yes, I am increasingly leaning toward hoax and I think the target is to cut America down to size and bring down capitalism, I could be wrong, but that's what I suspect."
You hung yourself.
Nice try Nolan, but you are still putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about a vast majority of scientists, specified Americans nor mentioned dems AND Republicans. Did you learn that in debating class?
What I agreed to was that I increasingly tend to think it is a hoax. If it is a hoax, then the only rational reason I can think of would be to set up some sort of world govt (UN) that would drag down the US to the level of say, France and yes, dismantle capitalism.
It seems to me that if people want to bring about such drastic changes and redistribute wealth, the burden should be on them to prove GW is real. The burden should not be on us skeptics.
This is why I tried to clarify what seemed to be your position by prefacing the statement, "So I understand" with a colon to indicate this was the point you were trying to make. When you responded in the following post, "Yes" without any qualifications, I assumed you were agreeing with said statement.
Ummmm...my bad?
Now that you ARE positing qualifications, let's address them. I included Americans, including Dems and Reps in the statement, because there are many American scientists, politicians (yes, some Republicans), and average citizens who assert man-made global warming. If GW is a Marxist hoax, it stands to reason that they are all part of it, no?
As to your claim that Obama is some sort of communist because he gave money to private banks with absolutely no strings attached so that they wouldn't fail, I have to wonder if you have even an inkling of the definition of communism (this point might be on another thread, but I'm tired of jumping back and forth).
This is also true if you believe France is somehow communist. It is a capitalist society much like our own, although it does have socialized medicine in addition to the socialized programs we have here in the U.S., such as education, police/fire, the military, et cetera.
Nolan,
You are playing word games-your bad.
"As to your claim that Obama is some sort of communist because he gave money to private banks with absolutely no strings attached so that they wouldn't fail, I have to wonder if you have even an inkling of the definition of communism"
Again, you are putting words in my mouth.
"This is also true if you believe France is somehow communist."
And yet again, you are putting words into my mouth.
Nolan,
you are engaging in a very shifty debating tactic.
Did I trick you into agreeing with that statement? Go back and edit stuff in later? When I write, "So this is what you think" and you respond "Yes, I am leaning toward that theory," that does not qualify as word games.
You may have a point about Obama/France. You have not specifically called them communist, but you have said they are anti-capitalist, and with all your Marxist talk, I may have assumed. Here's what you wrote about Obama:
"As for Obama, he is indeed trying to turn things upside down-he is trying to build a massive increase in govt control over our lives. The banks, the car companies, the pork stimulous bill and of course health care-one-sixth of our economy."
My point about the banks remains. How does he control them, again?
Here's what you wrote about France:
"If it is a hoax, then the only rational reason I can think of would be to set up some sort of world govt (UN) that would drag down the US to the level of say, France and yes, dismantle capitalism."
Remember, you've already called it a Marxist hoax. That statement implies the Marxists would want to make every country like France, and that France is not a capitalist country, does it not?
By the way, this is an entertaining/engaging debate. Thanks for having me.
You are quite welcome, Nolan, but I think we should leave it at our basic positions and agree to disagree on the subject of global warming. You think it's real, and I suspect it is a hoax, and I have my theory about why it would be a hoax.
I must now declare victory.
I believe Napoleon also declared victory. Time will tell.
Post a Comment