Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by flashman, Nov 23, 2009.

  1. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    Why TR, why do ignore every instance of 'misleading' that is brought up regarding the 'sources' and info that you support?

    Right or wrong, for essentially every one of your posts to be 'why did they leave x out or not address y' while simultaneously ignoring the very same questions regarding the info you post.....well, some would call that a bit hypocritical.

    Oh, and save your time, I'm not by any means 'all upset'. Try something else.;)
     
  2. WoodieSC

    WoodieSC North/South Carolina Flyway Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    19,580
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2000
    Location:
    SC
    And maybe, just maybe, you're correct. :scratch Or... maybe YOU make a much more nefarious issue out of this than is valid to do so?

    Did it ever cross your mind that there's no intention to 'mislead', but, rather, purely either a difference in opinion, or a lack of knowledge as to what the truth is? I mean, come on... let's face it, the scientific community has made it extremely difficult to trust them on any data they espouse. And that's nobody's fault but their own.
     
  3. Ron Gilmore

    Ron Gilmore Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    13,492
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    nd
    TX again and again! Come on TX, the work Watts was doing exposed a weakness in the data being used. They picked only 70 of the sites Watts identified. I do not have the review of Watts work in front of me, but it seems to me that the 70 or so stations they chose where not the only stations he identified, and that cumulative plotting of all his stations (whether valid or not a whole different subject) showed a different conclusion!!

    Again TX, it is about the data and validity of the data!!!!! You seem to be trying to make the case that it should not be opened up!!! My point is open it wide open, let those who deal in this, review it. Bring forth the conclusions and see where we are. Biased reviewing leads to biased reviews!!!!

    You want to continue to hunt with the dog that has a broken nose and leg, go ahead, myself I would rather see the dog heal then see if he can still hunt!!

    I said earlier that you are blind to what has taken place, both in the present and with the emails what will be happening. The peer review is not going to be enough, if the peer review has a bias. People, normal everyday people who vote, work,pay taxes etc.... are not stupid, blind or indifferent. They are trusting, but with HC, and Carbon Tax taking place, that normally quiet trusting populace has now taken a very angry edge and will not be hoodwinked or satisfied with the good old boy network of peer reviews on GW!!!!

    That is why TX, I have said over and over, bring on the data and let the people see it and if it stands up in the light of day fine. I can live with that!!! You on the other hand keep saying that this does not need to be done!!!!! It certainly does, and as I said I truly believe that it is going to take a legal battle such as the EPA rules to force this issue.

    We will see if the plotting of Watts stations is biased trying to protect a faulty report or if in fact the reporting and plotting and then theory as to what it means is accurate. Same with CO2 readings and historic estimates. Why would the GW supporters fear a court of law on this so much?

    One thing you might not realize TX is that I belong to a couple of Org that are very pro GW for the reason of seeing what new has come out. Got a letter asking for a donation to help lobby Congress to act so the EPA did not have to. On the surface this sounds good, but it was what is in the rest of the letter that made me really pause. They do not want the EPA rules to be challenged because of the points I listed. The light of day is going to increase the rate of decay of the GW support! The Org truly believes like you that all warming is man made, they believe in the Mann Hockey stick! They believe that only deniers as you like to use the term are quacks, and that they are doing it simply for money. Yet think the GW researchers are doing their work simply out of caring and are the most ethical of all people!!

    Again and again!!!!! Why worry if the science is so sound, that it get looked at, exposed to the light and see if it holds up!!!! Back room maneuvers, trying to suppress contrary opinions or questions regarding the work just adds to the distrust factor!!!!

    I just want the truth regardless of what it is!!!!!! Can you say the same? Or do you not want the truth if it differs from your belief?
     
  4. flashman

    flashman Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,514
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2000
    Location:
    Oasis, Idaho
    TX is in the business of calling us Deniers without admitting that is a prime representative of the species, Huckster.
     
  5. 'tween_fly_ways

    'tween_fly_ways Moderator

    Messages:
    5,448
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    South Tennessee via North Alabama
    I know people gloss over links, but this one did not lend itself to a partial posting of the story. In case anyone missed it, it is not an actual scientific paper. . . but it is authored by actual climatologists concerning the interference their actual scientific paper (based on actual data) received at the hands of those responsible for the actual emails referenced in the actual position put forward in this thread's original post. Actually, it details how the leaked emails shed light on their publishing tribulations, and the actual thoughts of those interfering.

    Not as sexy as the "hide the decline" snippet, but far more disturbing.
     
  6. TexasRed

    TexasRed Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,166
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    Texas
    Ron, the research is out there. Anybody is free to look at it and review it. You act like it is hidden somewhere. Gather all the scientific work and have at it. Again this court of law thing is a little out there.
     
  7. TexasRed

    TexasRed Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,166
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    Texas
    Not a sexy as "hide the decline" as there is nothing to that email. Contrary to what the deniers will try and make you believe. That may be the whole problem, you are trying to find something "sexy" instead of objectively looking at the emails.

    In regards to the peer review stuff it appears the system worked just liked it was suppose to. Nobody kept that article out of the journals. The researchers saw some serious flaws in it and addressed it. Seems much to do about nothing. Not real "sexy"

     
  8. Ron Gilmore

    Ron Gilmore Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    13,492
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    nd
    Actually TX, the research data is not out there as you say!! The research reports are and as was the case with the UN Report, not all of the data was included for review before it was crowned the king or all GW reports!!!

    Separate the data taken, be it core samples, temps etc.. and then the testing done to disprove what they are finding etc.. vs the report on the research with highlights! That TX is what I am talking about.

    When known, recognized scientist in the field of climatology are denied access to the raw data to try and duplicate the outcome that is claimed we have a huge credibility issue.

    Even NASA and NOAA have refused to release collected data claiming proprietary needs. Yet they want people to fall down and thank them for providing the summary report with some attached data!!!!

    Sorry TX, but that does not cut it!!!!!

    Take a look at the drug industry and how incomplete reporting or access by those charged with approving a drug has caused deaths, birth defects etc... when an agenda or push to something forward. You are going to say that the drug companies do it for profit, I would say that the researchers do it for profit as well!!!!!!!!!!
     
  9. 'tween_fly_ways

    'tween_fly_ways Moderator

    Messages:
    5,448
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    South Tennessee via North Alabama
    If you truly read the paper and that cherry picked quote (addressed in the paper) is you're conclusion. . .without caveat. . .then I know all I need know of your "scientific integrity".
     
  10. TexasRed

    TexasRed Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,166
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    Texas
    Alright fellas, I have enjoyed this lively debate but as it is getting close to Christmas I will be spending time with the family. Hope everybody enjoys their holidays and I am sure this topic will come up again. :clap
     

Share This Page