I want the truth. I want environmental policy to be based on good science. I want to pay taxes only where they're justified and I don't want a tax burden when they're not, or when they're based on a fallacy or politically tainted science.
I want the dirty science exposed so it can be removed from the sphere of influence, where it's leading policy, and I want genuine scientific study to be conducted in its place, with all the scientific condiments in place - transparency, true peer review etc.
If the truth is that it's impossible to determine if AGW is an actuality, I want to know that because it's important. If GOOD science, conducted properly, determines that AGW is a reality, I want to get behind that science with confidence and determination. I want real science, not a new religion.
It's included in the FOIA2009.zip, along with emails and other documents, released by "the mole". No bullshit. So Futerra put it up on their website as well. The content is the key.
By your way of thinking, anyone who isn't a rabbi, a priest, an archbishop or a doctor of theology etc, should also accept being told what to believe regarding religion. They're people who are experts in their field, after all.
Yet, just as in religion, in climate science different "leaders" say different things. Not all scientists studying climatology are supportive of the assertions made by the IPCC or the UEA CRU.
However, evidence now shows that those peers who questioned the findings of the UEA CRU have been subject to campaigns by pro-AGW scientists to marginalise them, prevent their own findings being published in peer review journals and so on. Evidence also shows that the scientists who, for example, created the "hockey stick" graph have actively avoided releasing, and have determined to destroy, the data behind their findings, despite this being a fundamental requirement of the principle process of scientific research and review.
The UEA CRU, having (and hiding) the largest data mesh of global temperatures in their GCM, is THE main proponent of the theory of AGW (man-made global warming) and provided the body of "evidence" and drew the conclusions upon which the IPCC has been based.
I can't believe you even said that
. I've attached a hint. This is one of the documents released by the mole (the security industry seems satisfied this was an "inside job"), created by the British government's DEFRA, as an instruction manual on how to coerce public opinion on AGW. Absorb.You clearly have no clue who the UEA CRU is, nor have any comprehension of how much influence it has, worldwide, on the climatology industry.
Silly.
Then you, of all people, should be the most offended by the activities of these "pre-eminent" scientists. Scientists do, or should, expect all scientists to be above reproach. Any science conducted in the manner it's been conducted at the UEA CRU should make you, as a scientist irrespective of your own field, absolutely furious with these so-called scientists for dirtying the integrity of science in the broadest sense.
It amazes me that you're not disgusted, that you're so accepting of their transgressions. You're a scientist? Are you sure?
More fun.. sounds like the New Zealand CRU have been caught massaging data and are using the now-questionable "peer reviewed method" excuses.
http://briefingroom.typepad.co ... e-temperature-faking.html
http://briefingroom.typepad.co ... e-temperature-faking.html
*The Wall Street Journal notes that the “two MMs” are Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who spent years and years seeking the raw data used in climate graphs.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page concludes that “. . . we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics."
For now, I'm sticking mostly with the Blogosphere. It gets its hits and builds its reputation by delivering good analysis and detailed objectivity.
Strangely, its angle isn't about Climategate at all, but an attack on the BBC's Paul Hudson, who blew the whistle on climate change on the BBC's website long before The Mail caught on. I wonder why that is. 
And the report is incorrect. Paul Hudson was only forwarded the emails that referred to himself. He wasn't sent the entire archive, as The Mail says. But telling that truth wouldn't suit their purpose, would it, since they're (a bit like you) just keen to trash the BBC.
And the report is incorrect. Paul Hudson was only forwarded the emails that referred to himself. He wasn't sent the entire archive, as The Mail says. But telling that truth wouldn't suit their purpose, would it, since they're (a bit like you) just keen to trash the BBC.
Oh puhleez. This thread isn't about BBC funding, it's about climate change science. We did the BBC funding crap to death repeatedly in other threads and you're not going to derail this thread too. Had enough now.
Okay.. so.. apart from the BBC's own weatherman, who posts his blog on the BBC's site, the BBC is pretending this thing doesn't exist. Oh, and BBC's Newsnight the other night with Paxman (who still failed to ask good questions although admittedly it was pretty soon after the story broke), the story's not the front-page news in the MSM that one might think it deserves to be, considering the implications.
Yes, the Mail has a bit on it and the Telegraph has a blog that covers it, but it's not broadly where it should be considering the significance of the story. The BBC isn't entirely guilty of suppressing the story, unlike my otherwise favourite newspaper the Independent, that hasn't breathed a single word about it yet.
Coverage of the story in MSM is secondary to the actual issue of the integrity of the science supposedly being conducted in our name, with our money.
Yes, the Mail has a bit on it and the Telegraph has a blog that covers it, but it's not broadly where it should be considering the significance of the story. The BBC isn't entirely guilty of suppressing the story, unlike my otherwise favourite newspaper the Independent, that hasn't breathed a single word about it yet.
Coverage of the story in MSM is secondary to the actual issue of the integrity of the science supposedly being conducted in our name, with our money.
Because it's an established method of finding information in web searches. subject+gate=result. I know it's annoying, but it's a necessary evil at the moment.
I don't think concern over trillions of taxpayers' money being spent on an illusion or a new religion is trivial or out of proportion.
Agreed. But find it on Sky, ITV or even one of the major newspaper outlets before you lamblast the BBC exclusively for its lack of balance.
[edit] And actually, Paul Hudson (nice local lad) at the BBC HAS been pretty upfront about it, and in fact has been "targeted for elimination" IN THESE UEA EMAILS for exposing the question. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/
Last edited by SamH, .
Reason : Not only, but also
Meh, irrelevent Alan. If it hadn't been for the BBC, the cocoa trade would never have been exposed for the vicious behaviour of companies like Cadbury's in third world countries, because ITV and satellite companies depend SO heavily on their advertising that ITV News and Sky et al wouldn't risk their incomes by telling the truth.
I'm not saying the BBC is right to toe the line, but your argument is twisted and faulty here.
[edit] Let's not get into that side of things, Alan. I've so much MORE ammo to fire along these lines that I'd have difficulty resisting if you decide to pursue it, and I don't think you'd look good as a quivering mess after my "how-advertising-revenue-suppresses-news" bombardment.
This is the argument for "good science", and unfortunately the activities at the UEA CRU have undermined the integrity of, not just climate research, all scientific research.
I regard the UEA's activities as a cancer in (one must assume, until proven wrong) the otherwise good, broader arena of science. I think it's essential to expose the cancer of politically driven (directly DEFRA/government funded) "scientific" conclusions and cut it out, but I agree that we must proceed cautiously. No need to throw the baby out with the filthy dirty bathwater.
Right now, we need the truth about where climate research science really is. ALL of it. The wider scientific community, for its own sake, should rally to support a genuinely independent and critical review/enquiry. Otherwise confidence in all research sciences will be severely undermined by these few well-funded, contaminated excuses for scientists.
Ugh! I did APL for a day, once. PL/1 doesn't look too bad! I find it ironic that popular languages have become even more obfuscated since those days, rather than less so.
I don't think it relates to NWO, tbh. I feel a bit uncomfortable with the whole AGW business because it's all a bit bum-about-face. I don't hold with conspiracy theories like 9/11, NWO etc., but the whole climate change scepticism amounts to a "conspiracy conspiracy" theory. Alarmism from the top down, rather than the usual conspiracy theories being subterfuge from the top down
Ahh yeah, we've just been there with the cannabis/tobacco debacle, haven't we? LOL!
Forbin, I must admit reservations about nuclear power. Fission is filthy dirty, there's no real debate about that. Waste disposal is hugely problematic and the risk of runaway reactions is ever-present. In fact, Three-Mile had an accident just the other day.
Once we have mastered the technology so that we can contain the plasma for a fusion reaction, THEN I will be wholly on-board with nuclear. Until then, however, to me it's simply not worth the long-term risk to solve a short-term problem.
Electrik Kar, what concerns me is that the main media outlets don't seem to want to get anywhere near it. Not even those historically keen to invest in investigative journalism. And worse still, Glenn Beck has latched on to it and is using it as a vehicle to bash Obama (who may well have been just as hood-winked as the rest of us by UEA CRU and the IPCC). Glenn Beck is a delusional moron, and could well be the kiss of death for the whole truth/exposé.
Once we have mastered the technology so that we can contain the plasma for a fusion reaction, THEN I will be wholly on-board with nuclear. Until then, however, to me it's simply not worth the long-term risk to solve a short-term problem.
Electrik Kar, what concerns me is that the main media outlets don't seem to want to get anywhere near it. Not even those historically keen to invest in investigative journalism. And worse still, Glenn Beck has latched on to it and is using it as a vehicle to bash Obama (who may well have been just as hood-winked as the rest of us by UEA CRU and the IPCC). Glenn Beck is a delusional moron, and could well be the kiss of death for the whole truth/exposé.
Last edited by SamH, .
Reason : Fusion/Fission.. tomato, potato..
I'm a big supporter of finding alternative energy sources. I love the idea of wind turbines and capturing solar energy. These are noble goals, and I certainly don't have issues with cleaning up our act.
My issue is that I don't like being lied to. I don't like the idea of paying taxes for science that lacks integrity, I don't like the idea of scientists being paid by the government to reach pre-determined conclusions.. tell me the truth.
Climategate - UEA CRU "hacked". Science Or Religion?
Well it's been a few days, now, but it doesn't look like the dust is going to settle any time soon in the blogosphere. Sceptics have been suspicious about the integrity of the data mesh being used to "prove" Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), otherwise known as man-made global warming, and the motivations behind the alarmism being perpetuated by so-called "global warming scientists".
I've spent quite a bit of time over the last few days, examining commented Fortran code used to create the data meshes and draw graph plots, and reading email exchanges between scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (UEA CRU) and I must say I'm pretty sure, now, that something is seriously amiss.
Firstly, it seems that the data available to CRU scientists is poor in quality and is wholly inadequate for use to compute historical climate conditions, or subsequently project future climate conditions. The CRU's own programmer clearly documents this.
Secondly, the emails document clear intent to tamper with the scientific process of peer reviewing the science of AGW by actively pressuring scientific journals to reject papers by known sceptics, discussing using bullying tactics to manipulate coverage at the BBC's Weather (to keep Paul Hudson quiet) and silence questioning voices there, etc.
Thirdly, the emails document agreements between CRU scientists to delete email correspondence AND data, rather than submit to requests for them under the Freedom Of Information Act.
Relevant links:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pau ... ppened-to-global-wa.shtml
http://bishophill.squarespace. ... /climate-cuttings-33.html
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
I'm interested to know how people feel about the leaked information, about the prospect of being car-taxed on what could possibly be sexed-up alarmism, and about the importance of scientific integrity, good science, bad science and the impact of the lure of grant money on scientific endeavours.
Has policy driven science, rather than science driven policy?
I've spent quite a bit of time over the last few days, examining commented Fortran code used to create the data meshes and draw graph plots, and reading email exchanges between scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (UEA CRU) and I must say I'm pretty sure, now, that something is seriously amiss.
Firstly, it seems that the data available to CRU scientists is poor in quality and is wholly inadequate for use to compute historical climate conditions, or subsequently project future climate conditions. The CRU's own programmer clearly documents this.
Secondly, the emails document clear intent to tamper with the scientific process of peer reviewing the science of AGW by actively pressuring scientific journals to reject papers by known sceptics, discussing using bullying tactics to manipulate coverage at the BBC's Weather (to keep Paul Hudson quiet) and silence questioning voices there, etc.
Thirdly, the emails document agreements between CRU scientists to delete email correspondence AND data, rather than submit to requests for them under the Freedom Of Information Act.
Relevant links:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pau ... ppened-to-global-wa.shtml
http://bishophill.squarespace. ... /climate-cuttings-33.html
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
I'm interested to know how people feel about the leaked information, about the prospect of being car-taxed on what could possibly be sexed-up alarmism, and about the importance of scientific integrity, good science, bad science and the impact of the lure of grant money on scientific endeavours.
Has policy driven science, rather than science driven policy?
No sign of it happening here, yet
The photos look good to me! RAW files just provide you with so many more opportunities for adjusting images in post-processing. I wouldn't consider shooting in anything other than RAW.
Headed into the Dales the other day, with a couple of old school friends, to take some photos. The day was dogged with atrocious light and one or two car problems but we did manage to get a couple of places for some shots.
I think Mike means this.. http://www.lfsforum.net/attach ... id=96199&d=1258478397
I really must agree.
I certainly went through the hardware snobbery phase, attempting to substitute a lack of raw photographic talent with buckles, bags, jackets and gadgets, and I came out the other side while still very young.
I've slowly upped my own game (it's been really slow, and I'm still trying) but I know that I will eventually take a photo to be proud of, even with the old hardware I have. My limitation isn't the camera*, it's me, time, patience, wisdom etc.
*Though I'm confident I'll never take a photo worthy of merit with this shite Coolpix thing I bought...
I certainly went through the hardware snobbery phase, attempting to substitute a lack of raw photographic talent with buckles, bags, jackets and gadgets, and I came out the other side while still very young.
I've slowly upped my own game (it's been really slow, and I'm still trying) but I know that I will eventually take a photo to be proud of, even with the old hardware I have. My limitation isn't the camera*, it's me, time, patience, wisdom etc.
*Though I'm confident I'll never take a photo worthy of merit with this shite Coolpix thing I bought...
For an image saved in-camera JPG, I think it's a fine photo. Lighting conditions look difficult but I think the camera's done a really good job with the resulting image. Perhaps I'm wrong, I just don't see lens issues at all.
Can't you just GIFT them and be happy that they're popular? It's always an option to give things away for the greater good of the community.
What a nonsense post, obsolum. You start out by saying that nobody can presume anything positive about the new physics, and then you make your own unqualified negative presumptions about them. Shameful and unnecessary.
In fact the new physics are working out so well that even Scawen, who usually plays expectations WAY down, felt compelled and enthusiastic enough to share with us the beta testers' enthusiasm for the new physics. So actually we DO have positive feedback, even before they've arrived, and they run in direct conflict with your negativity.
Given the information we DO have, I'd rather go with the positive vibe than suffer your baseless negativity if it's all the same.
In fact the new physics are working out so well that even Scawen, who usually plays expectations WAY down, felt compelled and enthusiastic enough to share with us the beta testers' enthusiasm for the new physics. So actually we DO have positive feedback, even before they've arrived, and they run in direct conflict with your negativity.
Given the information we DO have, I'd rather go with the positive vibe than suffer your baseless negativity if it's all the same.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG