[William Asher]

Ben C wrote in
:

Right but can't you see that it's _you_ who is doing that? I'm not the
one believing in anything here. The CO2 global-warming hypothesis is
definitely worth exploring, but obviously only if you do it properly.

I just have to know, if having thousands of researchers at hundreds of
laboratories around the world including experimentalists, modelers,
observationalists work on different facets of the problem, with those
scientists all striving to have their work reviewed by others working in
the field (including scientists who are skeptical of the theory to begin
with) and published in open journals, *and* with periodic review of the
combined results being conducted by an independent international body of
experts (that again includes some of the skeptical voices) *isn't* "doing
it properly" (as you seem to be implying), what would be a better way to
go about it?

--
Bill Asher

[Norman[_9_]]

On Nov 25, 4:18*pm, William Asher wrote:
Ben C wrote :

Right but can't you see that it's _you_ who is doing that? I'm not the
one believing in anything here. The CO2 global-warming hypothesis is
definitely worth exploring, but obviously only if you do it properly.

I just have to know, if having thousands of researchers at hundreds of
laboratories around the world including experimentalists, modelers,
observationalists work on different facets of the problem, with those
scientists all striving to have their work reviewed by others working in
the field (including scientists who are skeptical of the theory to begin
with) and published in open journals, *and* with periodic review of the
combined results being conducted by an independent international body of
experts (that again includes some of the skeptical voices) *isn't* "doing
it properly" (as you seem to be implying), what would be a better way to
go about it? *


If by "thousands of researchers" you're including the grad
students with rulers entering tree-ring data into notebooks,
then I guess there are thousands of researchers.

Exactly how many papers supporting AGW published since
1990 do _not_ cite Wang, Mann, Jones, Hansen, or any of the
other known frauds & fudgers? Any paper that cites them
should be treated as suspect, & any paper that uses them
for primary evidence should be summarily tossed out.
Further any paper that these fellows performed review on
should be rechecked. & any paper that these gentlemen
stifled, blocked, or contested should also be re-examined
in light of their perfidy.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 25, 8:55*pm, Norman wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:18*pm, William Asher wrote:





Ben C wrote :

Right but can't you see that it's _you_ who is doing that? I'm not the
one believing in anything here. The CO2 global-warming hypothesis is
definitely worth exploring, but obviously only if you do it properly.

I just have to know, if having thousands of researchers at hundreds of
laboratories around the world including experimentalists, modelers,
observationalists work on different facets of the problem, with those
scientists all striving to have their work reviewed by others working in
the field (including scientists who are skeptical of the theory to begin
with) and published in open journals, *and* with periodic review of the
combined results being conducted by an independent international body of
experts (that again includes some of the skeptical voices) *isn't* "doing
it properly" (as you seem to be implying), what would be a better way to
go about it? *

If by "thousands of researchers" you're including the grad
students with rulers entering tree-ring data into notebooks,
then I guess there are thousands of researchers.

Exactly how many papers supporting AGW published since
1990 do _not_ cite Wang, Mann, Jones, Hansen, or any of the
other known frauds & fudgers? *Any paper that cites them
should be treated as suspect, & any paper that uses them
for primary evidence should be summarily tossed out.
Further any paper that these fellows performed review on
should be rechecked. *& any paper that these gentlemen
stifled, blocked, or contested should also be re-examined
in light of their perfidy.

Just for the sake of comprehensiveness, let me throw in a couple more
necessary adjustments.

All papers refused in the last twenty years because their findings
differed from the prevailing hysteria of global warming require
reassessment on their merits rather than for their political
correctness.

There's a class of scientist that deserves special contempt. They
published papers containing data contrary to global warming which they
got published by prefacing them with a statement that they believe in
global warming, and usually concluding with some crap about how
they're sure their data indicates only a temporary glitch or an
anomaly in the glorious march of global warming. Along the way they
usually also submitted to editing to tone down their findings. These
scientists had their own data in their own hands and knew it was true,
and submitted to a form of mind control simply to stay in the game. I
think that once we finished making them fell our contempt for their
weakness, we should instantly make them heads of department (in the
place of the fired Jones, Mann, Briffa, et al) for their political
slyness in at least bringing some version of the truth to the table in
circumstance oppressive to the truth and dangerous to their careers.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

[Ben C]

On 2009-11-25, William Asher wrote:
Ben C wrote in
:

Right but can't you see that it's _you_ who is doing that? I'm not the
one believing in anything here. The CO2 global-warming hypothesis is
definitely worth exploring, but obviously only if you do it properly.

I just have to know, if having thousands of researchers at hundreds of
laboratories around the world including experimentalists, modelers,
observationalists work on different facets of the problem,

You say "thousands of researchers". OK different facets of the problem,
but UEA name just three sources of global temperatures:

There is excellent agreement on the course of temperature change
since 1881 between the data set that we contribute to (HadCRUT3) and
two other, independent analyses of worldwide temperature
measurements. There are no statistically significant differences
between the warming trends in the three series since the start of
the 20th century. The three independent global temperature data
series have been assembled by:

CRU and the Met Office Hadley Centre (HadCRUT3) in the UK.

The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in
Asheville, NC, USA.

The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the
National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) in New
York.

At least the first one stinks. Smoking gun or not, and whatever the
pnambic Phil Jones claims he meant by "hide the decline", just the tone
of those emails is enough to consider the work of that lot tainted.
Besides, one would be a fool to believe anything with Michael Mann
behind it for a second time.

As for the second two, how independent are they really? After all, as
far as I know Mann doesn't officially work for the Met Office Hadley
Centre.

with those scientists all striving to have their work reviewed by
others working in the field (including scientists who are skeptical of
the theory to begin with) and published in open journals,

What they don't seem to publish very often is the data and source code,
which seeing as most of the conclusions are based on computer models, is
the important stuff.

Instead I read an awful lot about "overwhelming scientific consensus".
Seems everyone just has a consensus that they have a consensus.

*and* with periodic review of the combined results being conducted by
an independent international body of experts

I trust "independent international bodies of experts" about as far as I
could spit them.

(that again includes some of the skeptical voices) *isn't* "doing it
properly" (as you seem to be implying), what would be a better way to
go about it?

In an ideal world, make all the data and source code public and fund
skeptic and non-skeptic research equally, and both a lot less. Throwing
too much money at the problem has made it worse.

In spite of all the fuss, we're not really cutting CO2 and probably
won't-- and certainly not by enough if the alarmists are right-- so,
provided the world hasn't ended for a completely different reason, we'll
get to see what happens.

So far the closest thing to an actual experiment is the one we've been
doing on ourselves for the last century. If you're right about the
isotopes, it looks like the CO2 has gone up because of human activity.
If McKitrick and McIntyre are right about the temperature record, the
only consequence of that seems to have been a growth spurt of some
bristlecone pines, and maybe half a dozen trees in Siberia.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

Ben C wrote:

In an ideal world, make all the data and source code public and fund
skeptic and non-skeptic research equally, and both a lot less. Throwing
too much money at the problem has made it worse.

The original sin here was the establishment of a government bureau to
handle climate change under a mandate that presumed climate change
before it was founded. The IPCC consists of bureaucrats. You ever hear
of bureaucrats who didn't find whatever human failing they were
constituted to find? It would be entirely unnatural for bureaucrats to
work themselves out of a job.

A temporary commission to investigate and report would have discovered
what the scientists reported in the first IPCC report: no manmade
global warming, no CO2 links. A temporary commission would have
reported and that would have been the end of it, no further action
required. But a permanent, publicly funded body must find something to
do.

In spite of all the fuss, we're not really cutting CO2 and probably
won't-- and certainly not by enough if the alarmists are right-- so,
provided the world hasn't ended for a completely different reason, we'll
get to see what happens.

I'm not encouraged by recent history to have any faith that anyone
will remember either the global warming scare or the monstrous cost.
As an exhibit, let me ask you a question: do you personally remember
the global freezing scare of the seventies? There was even a best-
selling book, recommending that we artificially warm the oceans to
alleviate the coming Ice Age. Imagine the unintended effects of that
if there were to be any kind of global warming, or just some sunspot
activity. It was quite as mindless as global warming, but now no one
except me remembers.

So far the closest thing to an actual experiment is the one we've been
doing on ourselves for the last century. If you're right about the
isotopes, it looks like the CO2 has gone up because of human activity.
If McKitrick and McIntyre are right about the temperature record, the
only consequence of that seems to have been a growth spurt of some
bristlecone pines, and maybe half a dozen trees in Siberia.

Those clowns Jones, Mann and Briffa spent their entire careers
seaching for *precisely* those six unsuitable trees that can be
manipulated to show a hockey stick graph! We should give them some
award for mindless persistence in the cause of their religion.

If this entire global warming affair hadn't cost so much and damaged
the reputation of all science so much, it would have been funny in a
bizarre sort of way. Richard Condon, who wrote a novel presenting
Prohibition as a plot by some rich men to get richer, should be alive
today! Mind you, Tom Sharpe is alive and working and this farce is
right up his street too.

Andre Jute
Not everything in materials is dreamt of in Timoshenko

[Ben C]

On 2009-11-26, Andre Jute wrote:
Ben C wrote:
[...]
So far the closest thing to an actual experiment is the one we've been
doing on ourselves for the last century. If you're right about the
isotopes, it looks like the CO2 has gone up because of human activity.
If McKitrick and McIntyre are right about the temperature record, the
only consequence of that seems to have been a growth spurt of some
bristlecone pines, and maybe half a dozen trees in Siberia.

Those clowns Jones, Mann and Briffa spent their entire careers
seaching for *precisely* those six unsuitable trees that can be
manipulated to show a hockey stick graph! We should give them some
award for mindless persistence in the cause of their religion.

Actually I should say that M&M don't attribute the growth spurt of those
trees to CO2 fertilization. It's unknown what caused it. Since it only
affected a few groups of trees, it was presumably something local.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 26, 8:42*pm, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-11-26, Andre Jute wrote:

*Ben C wrote:
[...]
So far the closest thing to an actual experiment is the one we've been
doing on ourselves for the last century. If you're right about the
isotopes, it looks like the CO2 has gone up because of human activity.
If McKitrick and McIntyre are right about the temperature record, the
only consequence of that seems to have been a growth spurt of some
bristlecone pines, and maybe half a dozen trees in Siberia.

Those clowns Jones, Mann and Briffa spent their entire careers
seaching for *precisely* those six unsuitable trees that can be
manipulated to show a hockey stick graph! We should give them some
award for mindless persistence in the cause of their religion.

Actually I should say that M&M don't attribute the growth spurt of those
trees to CO2 fertilization. It's unknown what caused it. Since it only
affected a few groups of trees, it was presumably something local.

Ah, all the times we heard the global warmies sneer that someone was
mistaking a little local weather for global climate, while they of
course did the same thing with monotonous regularly. Now we catch the
boss climate scientists out a) presenting a little local weather on an
obscure Colorado hilltop as global weather (Mann) and b) making out
that a few trees on an icy slope in Siberia is indicative of global
weather (Briffa). And in both cases they searched so hard for the
hockey stick (no, I tell you, it was Colonel Mustard in the library,
with the knife!) but found it not, except in the despicable,
unreliable bristle cones!

A little local weather up a deserted Colorado mountain, and a little
local weather on a deserted Siberian slope a thousand miles from
civilization, are setting global policy. I wonder if anyone has
explained that to world leaders at Copenhagen.

Andre Jute
The Earth has a lot of practice looking after itself. It still will
long after Man is gone.

[Clive George]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...

I wonder if anyone has explained that to world leaders at Copenhagen.

Why aren't you there Andre, rather than ranting away in a long-forgotton
corner of the internet?

You keep saying how you hang around in high places, hobnobbing with people
of stature - why aren't you talking to them?

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 26, 11:23*pm, "Clive George" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

...

I wonder if anyone has explained that to world leaders at Copenhagen.

Why aren't you there Andre, rather than ranting away in a long-forgotton
corner of the internet?

You keep saying how you hang around in high places, hobnobbing with people
of stature - why aren't you talking to them?

Got any technical contribution, sonny? Or is are these petty attempts
to nip my ankles the total extent of your talent? -- AJ

[Tim McNamara]

In article ,
Ben C wrote:

In spite of all the fuss, we're not really cutting CO2 and probably
won't-- and certainly not by enough if the alarmists are right-- so,
provided the world hasn't ended for a completely different reason,
we'll get to see what happens.

Some of it. Most of it will be seen by your children and your
grandchildren, if you have any. Sins of the fathers and all that.

So far the closest thing to an actual experiment is the one we've
been doing on ourselves for the last century. If you're right about
the isotopes, it looks like the CO2 has gone up because of human
activity. If McKitrick and McIntyre are right about the temperature
record, the only consequence of that seems to have been a growth
spurt of some bristlecone pines, and maybe half a dozen trees in
Siberia.

You've not been paying attention, then. Almost all of the measured
changes in the global climate have outstripped the most alarmist
computer models by a large margin (sea level rise at 180% of
predictions, for example).

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:03:49 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:

You've not been paying attention, then. Almost all of the measured
changes in the global climate have outstripped the most alarmist
computer models by a large margin (sea level rise at 180% of
predictions, for example).

If that is a fact, then it proves that the anthropogenic global
warming, predicted by the models is not what is going on. Something
else is happening that is quite unrelated.

d

[landotter]

On Nov 26, 10:17*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:03:49 -0600, Tim McNamara

wrote:
You've not been paying attention, then. *Almost all of the measured
changes in the global climate have outstripped the most alarmist
computer models by a large margin (sea level rise at 180% of
predictions, for example).

If that is a fact, then it proves that the anthropogenic global
warming, predicted by the models is not what is going on.

What evidence do you have for this lie?

Something
else is happening that is quite unrelated.

What evidence do you have for this lie?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:21:21 -0800 (PST), landotter
wrote:

On Nov 26, 10:17*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:03:49 -0600, Tim McNamara

wrote:
You've not been paying attention, then. *Almost all of the measured
changes in the global climate have outstripped the most alarmist
computer models by a large margin (sea level rise at 180% of
predictions, for example).

If that is a fact, then it proves that the anthropogenic global
warming, predicted by the models is not what is going on.

What evidence do you have for this lie?

Something
else is happening that is quite unrelated.

What evidence do you have for this lie?


Don't be an idiot. I was drawing an inevitable conclusion from the
previous post.

d

[landotter]

On Nov 26, 10:23*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:21:21 -0800 (PST), landotter



wrote:
On Nov 26, 10:17*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:03:49 -0600, Tim McNamara

wrote:
You've not been paying attention, then. *Almost all of the measured
changes in the global climate have outstripped the most alarmist
computer models by a large margin (sea level rise at 180% of
predictions, for example).

If that is a fact, then it proves that the anthropogenic global
warming, predicted by the models is not what is going on.

What evidence do you have for this lie?

Something
else is happening that is quite unrelated.

What evidence do you have for this lie?

Don't be an idiot. I was drawing an inevitable conclusion from the
previous post.

I'm an idiot because I require opinion to be served with evidence?
Laughable.

Your reasoning is just as retarded as creationists who find gods
wedged into each incomplete gap in the fossil record.

Occams razor.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:03:49 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:

You've not been paying attention, then. Almost all of the measured
changes in the global climate have outstripped the most alarmist
computer models by a large margin (sea level rise at 180% of
predictions, for example).

If that is a fact, then it proves that the anthropogenic global
warming, predicted by the models is not what is going on. Something
else is happening that is quite unrelated.

Good that I didn't plonk via a topic rule ....

d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:31:38 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

Good that I didn't plonk via a topic rule ....

I don't think I'd ever do that.

d

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:31:38 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

Good that I didn't plonk via a topic rule ....

I don't think I'd ever do that.

Nor would I, but all those that followed up in this thread having names I
could not recall are in my bit-bucket now, this is not the place for that
thread.

d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen