What Do We Think About Climate Change

Some interesting stuff from Jo Nova:

"Rajendra Pachauri states:

"IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin."

As usual, it’s honest volunteers who have conscientiously tested the IPCC by going through 18,500 references. And the final total? Fully 5,600, or 30% of their references are not peer reviewed."

Read the rest here and here.

Jimbo

 

You've got it bass awkwards, Mark. The vast majority of scientists don't believe AGW is real because there's a consensus; there's a consensus because the vast majority of scientists believe it's real. Check your Webster's for the definition of a consensus.

You might as well try to tell us people voted for Obama because he had a majority. No....he had a majority because people voted for him.

When it comes to your ex-wife, don't try to blame the academic community for your personal problems. She hardly proves everyone with a PhD is clueless.

Tell me: if having a PhD makes people useless and ignorant, where do you think we should draw the line? Is it OK to get a Masters degree, or does that screw people up too? How about a BA or a BS? Do you think folks can handle those?

Maybe the world of science would be better off if if budding scientists dropped out during their junior year and just started doing research. Or maybe they shouldn't enroll at all, if education is so dangerous to their minds....

 

Are these the same sort of 'honest' volunteers who hack email accounts?

 

The New Scientist just recently published article for its' usanian following where they had reported that the email fiasco was actually a misinterpretation by a number of ill-intended individuals in a scientific community, who were apparently guided by their jealousy.

I can confirm that it was reported in a number of other national networks such as TVE (Spain), TVC (Chile), Deutsche Welle (Germany) and TV France2.

So, another nail in the already well secured coffin of deniers' hopes...

Although I think that there was a bit of cover=up and jealousy from the AGW mobsters too. But one can not expect anglos to come clean on anything, as history has thaught us to date. If one wants to know the truth, one needs to make an effort to digest and analyse all sides and then hopefully make sense of the crap for himself.

Taking one side and sticking to it, despite abundance of evidence revealing dishonesty, is just childlish.

(that will be a synonimus for "stupid" in this particular context...)

 

its simply ludicrous to think that the IPCC has some vested interest in predicting disastrous consequences, Im sure these guys would greatly prefer to have some good news rather than the stark reality we are faced with

I cant help but notice that the deniers camp is comprised of thieves, former tobacco industry spokesman, oil and gas PR employees, pseudo scientists payed for preconceived conclusions and phony papers as well as some dwindling number of novices who discovered that big oil and dirty coal would pay for web space on forums like this one. Only reason I can imagine Jeff would allow this to go on like it has. Yet these same deniers are so quick to accuse honest scientists struggling to earn enough to buy a pizza or pay off there student loan of selling out.

sorry guys but its laughable to even consider these wild claims you present with only the evidence of thieves to back it up

barring any rational counter theory is this really the best you can do is attempt to create an issue out of what two or three emails in millions

sorry but its just laughable that this is such a big deal to some of you guys

one or two emails and you suggest they supersede what a hundred and fifty years of science by tens of thousands of scientist



I tried to throw you a few points for that last Masrapido but this darn thing wont let me

 

"where do you think we should draw the line" - I don't equivocate about this. When one has spent a majority of ones life in the halls of academia, the real-world perspective is called into question. Also, the more liberal the mentality, the more likely an individual is to consider education an end unto itself, therefore, my supposition is that there are a higher number of liberals with advanced science degrees (again, conservatives have something called "resposibility" and end up with advanced degrees often only because it is part of a remuneration package from their employer). There is no doubt that there are very many bright liberals with much education (take Bill Gates and his brilliance and lack of common sense) but this doesn't mean I would trust them with my children.
Also, "You might as well try to tell us people voted for Obama because he had a majority" - It is a well known phenomenon that people want to be associated with voting for a winner (Get him a red star).


Just what is it going to take for you people to stop trying to rest the world's free(er) economies on the backs of 50% of the populous of the Western nations? For Greece to topple? Then what - Portugal, Spain, the rest... Spain is as green as you can get - windmills spinning, solar panels on the mausoleums, etc., but if we do not stop this nonsense and Greece falls - Spain may be next. What is it going to take for you to see that AGW and liberalism are sired of the same dead-beat dad, progressivism? As long as the state of California upholds its collective bargaining agreement, you're okay? AGW is a tax, failure, probably World War, and a world government. At the least, it is pain. - You're okay with that?

 

sounds like you are up late having a few to many over there Mark. Yes the greater the education the more likely one is to become a liberal and yes the more time one spends in studies the less one has to get out and experience the real world. This does not preclude however the simple realities that many PHD's are some of the more productive members of society and in many cases end up producing the philosophies and concepts by which we have guided human development. There is simply no substitute for the benefits of higher education.

Also anyone with a degree in the sciences has undoubtedly taken a few ethics classes and is also likely to be a bit more responsible in there actions because of it. after all the higher the education the less likely one is to end up in jail, at least in this country that is.

Obummer is a politician and all politicians are slime, I think people voted for him because they detested the idea of another Reorge in orifice. So they voted for the guy who lied the best and cheated the most. Why ? who knows but I for one say its high time we dragged each and every one of em off to jail and use there assets to pay down the bonds they sold us out on.

Obummer is turning out to be one of the worst presidents we have had in about well lets see
since the last one I guess

whats the debt these days and now they are talking about another stimulus package are you kidding me or are they already planing on restructuring the dollar one of these days soon cause the Triffin Dilemma is clear on how this is going to turn out.

 

"worst presidents" In descending order, Madison, Roosevelt, Obama, Carter, W.
If America fails because of the money being spent and taxes being levied now, move Obama to the top of the list. If Isreal gets nuked because we let them down and encouraged Akmadinnerjacket by not having a spine, Obama will be one of the worst leaders the world has ever known. Madison is worst for stripping our military, then starting a war with England. Kennedy almost made the list for bumbling us into the Cuban missile crises. Although too slow to veto the spending of Congress, W is only fifth because he kept us safe and took the war to its source.
This is enough. I'm tired.

 

I think old Reorge and Obummer belong on the top
yes Roosevelts new deal was a raw deal but old Jolly Madison was not so bad other than maybe his plagiarism of the the Hiawatha belt or Iroquois constitution.

Carter was a putz but how he landed above say Gerald Ford on your list is beyond me

anyway these days we don't even have a good screw up like Clinton to hold up to a light and say
Hey look everybody a successful shyster

we need a revolution and we need it fast

 

I like this: liberal in the usa means you are a fricken leftie. Lefties are bad (sure, for biznes no good...imagine my heavy spanish accent while pronouncing "biznes"...)

Let us have a look. "Liberal" is a latin word meaning "free" as in "freedom" (and similar meanings, you get the idea).

Now, conservatives complain about the lefties wanting the pople of the world to be "liberal", that is to say to be "free".

Conservatives also claim to be the inventors of "democracy", better known as "capitalist democracy", as described so eloquently by the ***** number one of the world, forrest gump son.

So, here we have conservatives who want a democracy but excluding the freedoms.

Fear of change is quite powerful, particularly if the bunch soiling their undies are the scumbags with lots of money and access to those dreadful red little buttons...(nuclear warheads-carrying rockets buttons).

 

Plagiarism is a strong word but he did start a war, then hide in the bushes while the Brits burned down our Capitol. I don't know how Johnson missed the list. Clinton wasn't so bad, he was smart enough to learn that conservatism works and moved towards center. Charactor does matter, however. Ford didn't DO anything. When one can get a government to do nothing, that's going somewhere!

 

A conservative in the US is someone who's not only scared of change, but wants to take us back to the Good Old Days that never were.

You'll never catch one admitting that no matter what old days we went back to, they'd suck worse than today does.

 

You're babbling, son. Back up, take a deep breath, and engage your brain. You really need to stop being so scared to death of everyone and everything.

Trust me: admitting AGW is real isn't going to lead to World War III and/or the New World Order.

You are a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, which means that by definition and inclination you resist change. Which means you're inevitably on the losing end; the real world isn't going to stop changing just because you can't handle it.

I see you got a twofer in at the end of your post; you managed to bash organized labor and the State o California in the same sentence. That was cute, but gratuitous insults are a pathetic substitute for rational thinking and honest debate.

 

"gratuitous insults are a pathetic substitute for rational thinking and honest debate" - but don't preclude it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/25/geithner_i_never_had_a_real_job.html - tell me this intellectual relates to the world or has contributed anything positve to it...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/28959166-5082-11df-bc86-00144feab49a.html - No world government, you say?

Not a Conservative, more of a Libertarian but they have their problems, too. Neither of these parties has a premiss that openly states "We are going to take form that man and give his stuff to that man over there".

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/politics/25campaign.html?hp

http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/23-04-2010/113161-chomsky_warns_of_far_right_us-0 - goofy, but did Pravda just print Chomsky "justified anger" when refering to excess government?
Very naive to believe that this is not all about government.