Wildcat Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 As, therefore, did the other person who claimed there was not one paper in the list that disagreed with GW No, because the original report was a review only of peer reviewed papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Did someone say "peer review" ? The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures, relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals. Some of the more pungent e-mails: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" form here http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8487:global-warming-consensus-garbage-in-garbage-out&catid=57:commentary&Itemid=154 Well the IPCC obviously re-defined peer review when they stated the date of 2035 re the Himalayan Glacier erosion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Well the IPCC obviously re-defined peer review when they stated the date of 2035 re the Himalayan Glacier erosion. Yep,they really looked into that one didn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Did someone say "peer review" ? The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures, relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals. Some of the more pungent e-mails: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" form here http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8487:global-warming-consensus-garbage-in-garbage-out&catid=57:commentary&Itemid=154 Since the papers were referred to in the IPCC report, all you have is evidence of a scientist letting off some steam in an intemperate email. What is striking about the stolen emails released on the web is that understandable outbursts like these are so few and far between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonBennet Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Since the papers were referred to in the IPCC report, all you have is evidence of a scientist letting off some steam in an intemperate email. What is striking about the stolen emails released on the web is that understandable outbursts like these are so few and far between. Your hundreds of posts on this thread can all be summarised in the one sentence. "I believe everything the pro-global warming camp tell me and if anyone presents facts that contradict my view I'll just ignore them." I suppose you reckon that there were WMDs in Iraq and the government told the truth about their expenses claims as well. Nothing like keeping an open mind, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Yep,they really looked into that one didn't they? They made a small error of little consequence in a large report. Contrast that with the outright misrepresentations that you commonly get from Watts and others highlighted on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 (edited) Your hundreds of posts on this thread can all be summarised in the one sentence. "I believe everything the pro-global warming camp tell me and if anyone presents facts that contradict my view I'll just ignore them." I suppose you reckon that there were WMDs in Iraq and the government told the truth about their expenses claims as well. Nothing like keeping an open mind, eh? As usual you have it completely wrong. I have spent plenty of time providing detailed reasons to discount articles that contradict a clear consensus of informed opinion, I have primarily done so with the Scientific arguments and facts that refute the claims made, on occassion I have refuted an argument purely on the basis of the source being discredited. Both approaches are valid. On the other hand the people sceptical of the current consensus, have provided no explanation that fits the fact of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. And no good reason to doubt the consensus. Its a conspiracy of climate scientists to keep themselves in work is blatantly stupid when the need for their research is independent of whether the is human influence or not. And discounting the evidence on that basis is astonishingly stupid. The sceptical arguments put forward like your own yesterday saying it isn't warming, was refuted in detail and instead of reading the article explaining why you have put your head in the sand to ignore the uncomfortable truth. Rather than engage in a debate, instead you prefer to report your own fantasy of what has been said. The irony is truly astonishing. Perhaps you could explain how it is cooling, when the total energy for the planet continues to rise from all the indicators and measurements we have available? Or would you prefer just to stick your head in the sand because it is more comfortable there? http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm Edited January 20, 2010 by Wildcat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 They made a small error of little consequence in a large report. Contrast that with the outright misrepresentations that you commonly get from Watts and others highlighted on this thread. All the "small errors" add up to something more.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 (edited) All the "small errors" add up to something more.... What other "small errors" do you have in mind? The one where the CRU dataset slightly underestimates climate change because of the location of its readings? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html Edited January 20, 2010 by Wildcat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Your hundreds of posts on this thread can all be summarised in the one sentence. "I believe everything the pro-global warming camp tell me and if anyone presents facts that contradict my view I'll just ignore them." I suppose you reckon that there were WMDs in Iraq and the government told the truth about their expenses claims as well. Nothing like keeping an open mind, eh? Do you think Wikicats iceberg is melting on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now