Anything that gives you reason to feel repressed is oppressive. 
I think your perception of the US is definitely coloured by your own political views, which of course is reasonable. But at the same time, believing the things you do WHILE singing the praises of the (very socialist, anti-monarchic) US constitution makes less than plain sense.
I think your perception of the US is definitely coloured by your own political views, which of course is reasonable. But at the same time, believing the things you do WHILE singing the praises of the (very socialist, anti-monarchic) US constitution makes less than plain sense.
You can't defeat an over-generalisation by making one of your own. The Americans are not politically more smart than the British, any more than they are more wrinkly or have shorter hair than the British. Though I would say that, broadly speaking, they are less aware of, or conversant with, international politics than we are. Though this seems like a generalisation, it's a direct personal observation. It's not a criticism of its people either. When I lived in the US, I found it very difficult to GET international news in US media - and I was hunting for it.
The US population definitely has a different view of the US from the view generally seen by the rest of the world. It definitely thinks it is THE land of the free, to the exclusion of all others, though in my experience it was quite evidently more oppressive, more socially unjust than any other country I've visited or lived in. And though the constitution of the US reads well, the truth is that very few of its founding tenets are actually adhered to in modern-day USA. If they were, the US would definitely be MORE like "socialist Europe" than "socialist Europe" could ever hope to be.
The US population definitely has a different view of the US from the view generally seen by the rest of the world. It definitely thinks it is THE land of the free, to the exclusion of all others, though in my experience it was quite evidently more oppressive, more socially unjust than any other country I've visited or lived in. And though the constitution of the US reads well, the truth is that very few of its founding tenets are actually adhered to in modern-day USA. If they were, the US would definitely be MORE like "socialist Europe" than "socialist Europe" could ever hope to be.
Yeah, notably propagandist from beginning to end.
hehe! I think they lose it earlier, actually. The term "denier", which is deliberately synonymous with the very derogatory "holocaust denier", Godwins them from the outset.
Good point, well made!
[edit] I doubt you missed it, but on the off-chance you did, it's worth reading Chris Landsea's IPCC resignation letter. With the revelations in the emails, it's far easier to read it properly in context...
http://www.climatechangefacts. ... gnationLetterFromIPCC.htm
Last edited by SamH, .
Reason : ...
Gotta be honest, Mike, to me the whole problem that has been revealed at the UEA CRU revolves in the compromising of scientific integrity by political and advocacy influences. Your answer to the "lefty" influence is a "righty" attack. But you don't address the problem of scientific integrity, and won't make any move to resolve it by ranting politically like you do.
I think you've either completely missed the point or are incapable of achieving political escape velocity. You compound the problem rather than fix it.
I think you've either completely missed the point or are incapable of achieving political escape velocity. You compound the problem rather than fix it.
Snow indeed 
We got a smattering earlier today, when it was light, but it's falling a bit more enthusiastically now and should look good tomorrow
I took a few today. Will hopefully get some nice ones tomorrow, before it all melts away again!
We got a smattering earlier today, when it was light, but it's falling a bit more enthusiastically now and should look good tomorrow I took a few today. Will hopefully get some nice ones tomorrow, before it all melts away again!
I can't believe how much I know about climatology these days. I always had a glancing interest, accompanying my suspicions based on personal experiences and my knowledge of history (Chaucer, cows in Greenland, Thames frozen over etc.) but I never thought I'd be exploring the IPCC AR4 in depth, or that I'd be as knowledgeable as I am, now, regarding the forcings and positive/negative feedbacks of CO2, cloud and water vapour. I know I'm a bit OCD at times, but bloody nora..
Current state of play for me: I'm observing that AGW climatologists are almost solely insulting sceptics and their intelligence with ad hominem attack after attack. Sceptics are responding to these attacks with science. And there is an abundance of it.
With regard to the IEA's paper, I noted that:
That translates to "We don't cherry-pick data sources, the WMO does it for us."
When you have data available, you use it. All of it. If you're not going to use some of it, you add meta-data explaining the reason for its exclusion (UHI or whatever). At the moment, there is no explanation as to why all of 40% of Russian sites were excluded from the data set, nor why the ones that were excluded happen to also be the most stable (location) and constant (longest records). Yet again, the data is missing or incomplete and all of the scientific method (the explanation for the exclusions) is secret or - worse still - doesn't exist. It's just a continuation of the problem identified by sceptics for years, that they're excluded from the process and denied the ability to replicate the experiments for themselves. It's just more of the "Don't ask impertinent questions, just believe us. We're the official scientists."
Current state of play for me: I'm observing that AGW climatologists are almost solely insulting sceptics and their intelligence with ad hominem attack after attack. Sceptics are responding to these attacks with science. And there is an abundance of it.
With regard to the IEA's paper, I noted that:
That translates to "We don't cherry-pick data sources, the WMO does it for us."
When you have data available, you use it. All of it. If you're not going to use some of it, you add meta-data explaining the reason for its exclusion (UHI or whatever). At the moment, there is no explanation as to why all of 40% of Russian sites were excluded from the data set, nor why the ones that were excluded happen to also be the most stable (location) and constant (longest records). Yet again, the data is missing or incomplete and all of the scientific method (the explanation for the exclusions) is secret or - worse still - doesn't exist. It's just a continuation of the problem identified by sceptics for years, that they're excluded from the process and denied the ability to replicate the experiments for themselves. It's just more of the "Don't ask impertinent questions, just believe us. We're the official scientists."
A couple of recent-ish ones I don't think I've posted.
Credit where it's due, Alan. The Mail's successfully put together an editorial based on reporting the facts, leaving political inferences out, and it's refreshing to see. It happens so rarely in journalism these days, even though it's a tenet of journalism.
Here's an impressively insightful and straight-forward summary of the scandal so far: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new ... -admit-DID-send-them.html
Mainstream media as well.
I watched the MIT forum today, discussing sociopolitical implications of the fall-out of the scandal. If you can find a couple of hours to spare, it's a pretty interesting watch: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730
I particularly enjoyed Lindzen's contributions. He seems to be entirely dispassionate (a model scientist?) and very up-front and honest about the implications of the emails, collusion and data deletion/integrity. I love how he's stunned by Prinn's acceptance of Mann and Jones's activities with mix-n-matching proxy and real temperatures, and how Prinn doesn't see why the recent divergence doesn't undermine the historical tree ring proxy data. Moments of clarity, notable as well for their rarety.
Mainstream media as well.
I watched the MIT forum today, discussing sociopolitical implications of the fall-out of the scandal. If you can find a couple of hours to spare, it's a pretty interesting watch: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730
I particularly enjoyed Lindzen's contributions. He seems to be entirely dispassionate (a model scientist?) and very up-front and honest about the implications of the emails, collusion and data deletion/integrity. I love how he's stunned by Prinn's acceptance of Mann and Jones's activities with mix-n-matching proxy and real temperatures, and how Prinn doesn't see why the recent divergence doesn't undermine the historical tree ring proxy data. Moments of clarity, notable as well for their rarety.
Can anyone clarify the tree ring issue? I know that since the (60s?) there's been a divergence of thermometer readings and tree rings as proxies.
Since the divergence is evident, surely that then invalidates historical tree rings as a proxy for historical temperatures with integrity? But unless I'm mistaken, the climatologists are ADMITTING that they're still plotting tree ring measurements as authoritative, pre-1961, AND (on the same plotted line) replacing tree ring data with real temperature readings post-1961.
I must surely be missing something because, even though I'm a layman in climatology terms, even I can't equate this practice with normal practices of scientific method.
[edit] Oh yeah, and if we can't use tree ring data, which proxies are we using to identify the MWP? Do we have a dependable proxy for ~C1000?
Since the divergence is evident, surely that then invalidates historical tree rings as a proxy for historical temperatures with integrity? But unless I'm mistaken, the climatologists are ADMITTING that they're still plotting tree ring measurements as authoritative, pre-1961, AND (on the same plotted line) replacing tree ring data with real temperature readings post-1961.
I must surely be missing something because, even though I'm a layman in climatology terms, even I can't equate this practice with normal practices of scientific method.
[edit] Oh yeah, and if we can't use tree ring data, which proxies are we using to identify the MWP? Do we have a dependable proxy for ~C1000?
Last edited by SamH, .
Reason : ..
A good review of the right-wing media's coverage of "Climategate". Doesn't hold all the answers, but it does introduce some perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
I've added a poll to the thread. I'm curious to know where people are with the science behind the AGW theory.
Please note that it's a public poll. We're all friends so there's no need to be shy.
Please note that it's a public poll. We're all friends so there's no need to be shy.
I think it will probably prevent a legally binding commitment being agreed, yes.
The emails and documents don't prove that the theory of man-made global warming (or "climate change" as it's now being termed, since the global warming trend has now vanished) is a hoax. What is implicit, though, is that the science behind the theory is not "settled", as is insisted upon by Al Gore, Gordon Brown, and many climatologists.
Also implicit is that there needs to be a review of the scientific process behind climate study, to ensure that: where evidence doesn't suit the theory then the theory is discarded; when evidence is "unhelpful", it is not discarded or concealed, and; that both the scientific methodology employed in theses and also the post-conclusion peer review process are open and transparent, not guarded incestuously by the scientists performing the scientific research.
There are many ripples through the broader scientific community in reaction to the revelations about the science of climatology, mostly regarding the peer review process. It seems clear that many scientists are concerned that confidence in their own reputations as scientists could be undermined by the standard of "settled" science of climatology. There's a real potential for the "scientist" to become a source of mockery all down the cynical side of community, and so I'm anticipating reviews in many "seats of learning" to be subject to critical review and change, where necessary, to bolster practices of transparency, evidential support/data availability and reinforced and vigorous peer-review mechanisms.
Scientists do generally pride themselves on the distinction between science and religion - Galilean principles, in other words - and anything that blurs that distinction (faith without proof of AGW) will be regarded as a top priority to address.
Well, that's how I see it all falling back to earth, anyway
The emails and documents don't prove that the theory of man-made global warming (or "climate change" as it's now being termed, since the global warming trend has now vanished) is a hoax. What is implicit, though, is that the science behind the theory is not "settled", as is insisted upon by Al Gore, Gordon Brown, and many climatologists.
Also implicit is that there needs to be a review of the scientific process behind climate study, to ensure that: where evidence doesn't suit the theory then the theory is discarded; when evidence is "unhelpful", it is not discarded or concealed, and; that both the scientific methodology employed in theses and also the post-conclusion peer review process are open and transparent, not guarded incestuously by the scientists performing the scientific research.
There are many ripples through the broader scientific community in reaction to the revelations about the science of climatology, mostly regarding the peer review process. It seems clear that many scientists are concerned that confidence in their own reputations as scientists could be undermined by the standard of "settled" science of climatology. There's a real potential for the "scientist" to become a source of mockery all down the cynical side of community, and so I'm anticipating reviews in many "seats of learning" to be subject to critical review and change, where necessary, to bolster practices of transparency, evidential support/data availability and reinforced and vigorous peer-review mechanisms.
Scientists do generally pride themselves on the distinction between science and religion - Galilean principles, in other words - and anything that blurs that distinction (faith without proof of AGW) will be regarded as a top priority to address.
Well, that's how I see it all falling back to earth, anyway
Did I post any shots from my day in Whitby? I don't think I did, but if so, apologies for any repeats..
That's probably the best visual and textual analysis of what's been going on that I've seen so far. Great read.
I don't think this has been covered here yet: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8387737.stm
The IPCC's information, which it admits was never subjected to peer review (despite this being the IPCC's mandate) and was based on very loose journal reports, has been found to be exceedingly inaccurate.
Despite this, Rajendra Pachauri (head of the IPCC) says the IPCC conclusion is accurate, and that the date (2035 stated in the IPCC report vs. 2350 in the scientific study) doesn't need revisiting.
This from the man at the IPCC that says that climate science from the UEA CRU is robustly unbiased.
The IPCC's information, which it admits was never subjected to peer review (despite this being the IPCC's mandate) and was based on very loose journal reports, has been found to be exceedingly inaccurate.
Despite this, Rajendra Pachauri (head of the IPCC) says the IPCC conclusion is accurate, and that the date (2035 stated in the IPCC report vs. 2350 in the scientific study) doesn't need revisiting.
This from the man at the IPCC that says that climate science from the UEA CRU is robustly unbiased.
Here's one recent example of an eminent climate/geodynamics scientist trying to redress the current frenzy of alarmism. It rather helpfully hints at one aspect of the motivation for generating such hype, and rather slaps it down too: http://www.spectator.co.uk/cof ... dives-arent-sinking.thtml
UN panel to probe scientists in climate change row: http://www.independent.co.uk/e ... e-change-row-1834151.html
I'm not sure how much faith to place in a UN investigation of the scientists behind the IPCC AR4. I guess we have to wait and see what methodology they use. Two investigations in parallel; I wonder if their conclusions are as diverse as the UEA's CRU tree ring and proxy temperature readings.
I'm not sure how much faith to place in a UN investigation of the scientists behind the IPCC AR4. I guess we have to wait and see what methodology they use. Two investigations in parallel; I wonder if their conclusions are as diverse as the UEA's CRU tree ring and proxy temperature readings.
The current problem seems to revolve around the police's own officers not understanding the regulations and not being smart enough to make a good judgement call.
Anyone shooting in the UK should download, print and keep this "bust card" PDF in their wallet. Show it to the cop that wants to take your beloved camera off you or arrest you for taking photos and hopefully you'll cut down on the amount of time wasted by the pigs: http://photographernotaterrorist.org/bust-card/
Anyone shooting in the UK should download, print and keep this "bust card" PDF in their wallet. Show it to the cop that wants to take your beloved camera off you or arrest you for taking photos and hopefully you'll cut down on the amount of time wasted by the pigs: http://photographernotaterrorist.org/bust-card/
Photography news for UK users: http://www.independent.co.uk/n ... this-picture-1833127.html
And on that score, Paul Hudson's blog (Paul was pretty much the mainstream media's first acknowledgement that there's no global warming going on) has info on the independent enquiry. Could be fun!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pau ... ws-cru-enquiry-anno.shtml
Their reasons for making a big deal are as politically biased as those who are not acknowledging it at all. Just because their bias happens to suit the sceptics, at least by getting the story out there, that doesn't mean they share the motivations of the sceptics.
The sceptics just want good science performed, and don't want bad science to be paraded, masquerading as good science. Politics doesn't enter into it.
Glenn Beck is a moron. That's a scientific fact for you. I can even prove it with a wealth of empirical evidence, and everyone would be welcome to check my work.
FOX's response to the politicizing of climate science that's been exposed is to deepen the politicizing of the exposé itself. Typical idiocy from FOX, but we'd expect nothing less. Heck, it's not like they've never tampered with "evidence" to support their theories, either. They're forever getting busted for lying and deliberately manufacturing stories.
Forget FOX News, Beck et al. They're insidious.
FOX's response to the politicizing of climate science that's been exposed is to deepen the politicizing of the exposé itself. Typical idiocy from FOX, but we'd expect nothing less. Heck, it's not like they've never tampered with "evidence" to support their theories, either. They're forever getting busted for lying and deliberately manufacturing stories.
Forget FOX News, Beck et al. They're insidious.
The nature journal is pretty interesting in the way it pretends the content of the emails is not damming. It's also interesting how it refers to sceptics as a "delialist fringe". Many uses of derogatory terms, such as "paranoid", "obstructionist", "harassment" etc. I certainly learned quite a bit about nature.com from its own particularly loaded wording. It's pretty apologist.
The email you quoted was created by George Monbiot, a "green" journalist whose world has been shaken quite a bit. He's pretty embarrassed about being blindly led to champion the AGW cause and he says he's ashamed to have failed in his duties as a journalist to examine the evidence behind the politics that he's promoted in the articles he's been writing for years. I'm not sure what Monbiot's going to do now. He's been shamefully exposed as a 2nd-rate journalist, but judging by his attempt at writing satire I don't think he should try to get into comedy writing. That's perhaps another career floating down the stream over this whole scandal.
The email you quoted was created by George Monbiot, a "green" journalist whose world has been shaken quite a bit. He's pretty embarrassed about being blindly led to champion the AGW cause and he says he's ashamed to have failed in his duties as a journalist to examine the evidence behind the politics that he's promoted in the articles he's been writing for years. I'm not sure what Monbiot's going to do now. He's been shamefully exposed as a 2nd-rate journalist, but judging by his attempt at writing satire I don't think he should try to get into comedy writing. That's perhaps another career floating down the stream over this whole scandal.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG