On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:23:35 -0500, the infamous Pete Snell
scrawled the following:
Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:46:45 -0500, the infamous Pete Snell
scrawled the following:
It's good,(and typical)that scientists are releasing all the data for
evaluation. Here's an article from your same newspaper.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6753253/Copenhagen-climate-summit-the-climate-sceptics-QandA.html
By Fred Pearce, who seems to try to make himself appear neutral when
he certainly isn't. He's from New Scientist, which is not even peer
reviewed, though that doesn't seem to make much difference nowadays.
I mostly posted that link as it came from the same source as the
previous poster's link. Personally I think that Q&A is pretty reasonable
until the last couple of A's....
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
Har! I stopped here "But hypothetically, even if the hockey stick was
busted... What of it? " regarding Mann's manipulation of data/graphs.
Who were Rennie's peer reviewers for this article?
Really? You stopped there? I'm not sure why Rennie needs peer
reviewers for an article in a popular publication, especially when he
doesn't seem to be presenting any new or original research. He gave
links to the other papers and publications, which would seem to be
enough for an article like that.
You don't see the need for peer review of scientific articles in a
science mag? Oh, OK. I do. It (theoretically) keeps 'em honest. Not
that that counts nowadays. sigh
http://royalsociety.org/Climate-change-controversies-a-simple-guide/
Hmmm, in misleading argument #1, they say "the increase of
threequarters of a degree centigrade (0.74°C) in average global
temperatures that we have seen over the last century is larger than
can be accounted for by natural factors alone."
Then in misleading argument #2, they say "Even these tiny quantities
have resulted in an increase in global temperatures of 0.74ºC (see
misleading argument 1)."
Bzzzzt! If this is any indication of the quality of the rest of the
article, it bears no further scrutiny. Hmm, do they get their data
from the CRU, too? 
Why Bzzztt? If the statement is based on what the data and evidence
shows, how is it wrong? Just curious. Perhaps you have other evidence to
share. Please don't keep it a secret like those other guys. ;-)
First they say that they can't attribute the entire .74C rise to
natural factors, then they suddenly say that the whole .74C rise is
anthropomorphic. Doesn't that strike you as less than honest, Pete?
It's damned subtle unless you're looking for it. That's why I'm really
curious to see to whence all the emails lead. Off with their heads,
Arrrrr! Then start over with just the facts next time, please.
It's
curious that you seem to stop reading as soon as you see something you
don't like. I'm not implying you need to swallow everything hook line
and sinker, but this article isn't by some lame blogger, and it isn't
long or cumbersome. Of course, its shortcoming is that it doesn't point
out a conspiracy by left wing groups, or scientists trying to build an
empire.
Nah, not an empire, just steady work on whatever they want. It's what
we all want, but do we lie, cheat and steal for it as they seem to be,
while under the guise of being upright, honest scientists? It's
sickening and angering to me. Science is no longer on its pedestal
for a whole lot of people after this crap (AGWK and CRU), and that's
truly sad. It leads to the politicians going after the rest of
science to use it for their own dark means, don't you think?
And it doesn't present a graph on a giant TV screen so that you
need a lift to see how high things are going, or show a polar bear
jumping from ice floe to ice floe.
I've read so much biased **** on this subject that when my finely
honed **** detector goes of clearly just 1 time now, I know it's going
to be more of the same with the rest of the article. Why waste time?
I read that same old pattern and just turn it off. What we all really
want is the unvarnished _truth_: good, bad or ugly.
Hmmmmm maybe you're right. It is kinda lame..;-)
Yeah. Effin' Algore and his sheeple minions worldwide... sigh
P.S: Um, don't Canadians have their own sources of news/scientists?
Yes. Yes we do.
So, quick: Quote one!
P.S: Have you read Huber's _Hard Green_ yet? Just do it! If everyone
had, we'd be more rational about things, solving the solvable, and
leaving the Parts-Per-Ten-Billioners in the dust where they belong.
--
Don't forget the 7 P's:
Proper Prior Planning Prevents ****-Poor Performance