Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric who wrote (21678)	7/7/2010 12:51:48 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86352

who are we going to believe, the "experts" with an agenda or our own lying eyes?

To: Eric who wrote (21678)	7/7/2010 7:16:47 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86352

Global warming: An inquiry that doesn't look at the science cannot understand Climategate .... this is the same modus operandi used by the government of the United Kingdom in all of its investigations into controversial actions or decisions--whether it be about Iraq, the Bloody Sunday massacre or the corruption scandal involving BAE and the Saudi government. In each case, a number of inquiries are commissioned. They do not run simultaneously. The are each given specific terms of reference, which they don't always disclose. The terms of reference taken as a whole leave huge gaps in what should be investigated. The inquires consistently exonerate the principals they are investigating, but there is a wide sense of dissatisfaction among those following the issue, as it is clear that central questions were not addressed. In the Russell report, Russell writes that the Oxburgh inquiry looked at the science. Lord Oxburgh has specifically stated that his inquiry did not look at the science. Nor did the Parliamentary sub-committee's one day hearing. Nor did either of the Penn State investigations. The behaviour of the Climategate scientists cannot be understood or even traced effectively unless the scientific issues are examined in parallel. As the inquiry chose not to take oral testimony from witnesses and relied on submissions emailed before their terms of reference were clear, the science that drove their behaviour has been left unexamined. ...... But in terms of making this issue go away, which is the obvious goal of all these investigations, it failed to do what it was meant to do. I have no doubt that on all the consensus websites there will be triumphant posts about all the investigations coming back with a 'not guilty' verdict for their champions. But without looking at the science, they didn't look at Climategate. examiner.com

To: Eric who wrote (21678)	7/7/2010 7:23:31 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 86352

It was the fraudulent hockey stick designed to make the MWP "go away" that was at the heart of Climategate .... and the hockey stick is still broken. ..... The father of modern climatology, HH Lamb, founded CRU in 1972, and the building the academics work in takes his name. When Lamb contributed to the first IPCC report in 1980 the historical temperature record looked like this. regmedia.co.uk By 2001, it looked like this. regmedia.co.uk What Climategate is largely about, then, is whether the academics were justified in making that Medieval Warm Period disappear. Unfortunately, none of the three 'independent' reviews have grappled with this. The absence of anomalous warming doesn't, as some skeptics say, make the problem go away. ...... Yet in the academics' own words, we learn that the recent burst of warming, while real, is far from unusual. One of the leading CRU academics, Keith Briffa, wrote that: “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter... "For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.” In an interview in February, CRU director Phil Jones agrees that recent warming isn't statistically significant, and is matched by previous periods in the instrumental record - such as 1860 to 1880. The sensible end of the climate debate hinges on how much of a lasting consequence an increase in CO2 has on the climate system. Some prominent scientists who as recently as 2001 were lead authors for the IPCC don't dispute there's an effect, but maintain that once it's worked itself out, the effect is small. Proponents of large positive CO2 feedbacks have pointed to various 'fingerprints' which are absent, or refuse to manifest themselves. Greenhouse gas warming was supposed to create a telltale warming of the troposphere, but instrumental readings show no such evidence. More recently, they have posited that CO2 must have caused warming, but this is still trapped in the oceans. This "missing heat" has yet to be found, and in the Climategate archive we find US scientist Kevin Trenberth expressing frustration: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," adding that "we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!" .... theregister.co.uk