Climate "Science"? Not so much...

[statman]

The "scientists" in charge of protecting the global temperature data don't want to release it, or explain how transformations of the data were arrived at. In short, they won't allow the scientific method to challenge the assertions they've made. An interesting little article:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=

This behavior sounds a lot more like something that would happen at The Vatican than something that would happen in an academic setting. I'm glad there's a consensus and we don't need to do any more of that pesky science stuff...

[SloanHater]

The "scientists" in charge of protecting the global temperature data don't want to release it, or explain how transformations of the data were arrived at. In short, they won't allow the scientific method to challenge the assertions they've made. An interesting little article:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=

This behavior sounds a lot more like something that would happen at The Vatican than something that would happen in an academic setting. I'm glad there's a consensus and we don't need to do any more of that pesky science stuff...

I was going to read the article until I saw the address. I'll just listen for Hannity to summarize it for me. Cuts out the middle man (my brain).

[JohnnyLingo]

I was going to read the article until I saw the address. I'll just listen for Hannity to summarize it for me. Cuts out the middle man (my brain).

You do that. Meanwhile, I'll immediately discount anything that comes from the New York Times, ABC, NBC, CNN and CBS. It's pretty much the same thing as what you're doing.

[SoCalCoug]

You do that. Meanwhile, I'll immediately discount anything that comes from the New York Times, ABC, NBC, CNN and CBS. It's pretty much the same thing as what you're doing.

As if you don't do that anyway.

[SloanHater]

You do that. Meanwhile, I'll immediately discount anything that comes from the New York Times, ABC, NBC, CNN and CBS. It's pretty much the same thing as what you're doing.

Your loss. The Ghost Whisperer is Fantastic!

[JohnnyLingo]

As if you don't do that anyway.

I don't. I at least read and watch stories from those sources. SloanHater is burying his head in the sand against ideas he disagrees with.

[SloanHater]

I don't. I at least read and watch stories from those sources. SloanHater is burying his head in the sand against ideas he disagrees with.

Too funny coming from you. So YOU are saying I should have an open mind to others' opinions and not simply dismiss them with rhetoric?

[statman]

I was going to read the article until I saw the address. I'll just listen for Hannity to summarize it for me. Cuts out the middle man (my brain).

And the right is criticized for wearing blinders. Way to represent the biggoted groupthink of the left.

"Consensus has been reached." No single statement could sum up the problems with the Obama administration (helathcare, cap and trade, stimulus package, etc) than that one. And no one could exemplify it better than Sloan Hater just did.

[Indy Coug]

Has anyone attempted to build a climate model that explains

1. The extreme buildup of the polar icecaps during the Ice Age

2. The relative speed with which the ice caps melted, resulting in the sea level increasing by an upwards of 100 meters?

This all happened without the influence of industrialized mankind. Until we can adequately explain and model these "control variables", how in the world can we quantify anthropogenic global warming?

[JohnnyLingo]

Too funny coming from you. So YOU are saying I should have an open mind to others' opinions and not simply dismiss them with rhetoric?

No, I'm saying you should at least read/listen to the other side's arguments. If, at that point, you choose to dismiss them, that's far better than choosing to hide from them entirely.

Do you see the difference?

[SloanHater]

And the right is criticized for wearing blinders. Way to represent the biggoted groupthink of the left.

"Consensus has been reached." No single statement could sum up the problems with the Obama administration (helathcare, cap and trade, stimulus package, etc) than that one. And no one could exemplify it better than Sloan Hater just did.

Did you even take into consideration the author of your article? Or the fact that he has already written multiple books criticizing the evidence that supports climate change?

Why would any reasonable scientist share the data they have worked to collect with someone they know to be a propagandist?

EDIT: Let me summarize the article so others don't have to waste their time. Patrick J. Michaels calls Phil Jones a liar because he cannot produce the original computer files containing weather records from the 1980's. Yet Mr. Michaels has no proof or facts to substantiate his claims. So my point stands. If you want to be published on NRO or praised by Hannity, simply fling allegations until something sticks.

[statman]

Did you even take into consideration the author of your article? Or the fact that he has already written multiple books criticizing the evidence that supports climate change?

Why would any reasonable scientist share the data they have worked to collect with someone they know to be a propagandist?

Because if he's a "reasonable scientist" his data and methods should stand up to the scrutiny of a mere propagandist.

Talk to "Nature" about who the propagandists are. (Nature is the journal that published the original "hockey stick" article that really got the AGW ball rolling. Nature refused to even accept for review the article that thoroughly disproved the hockey stick article and showed its author to be either incompetent or an outright fraud. To "Nature," consensus had already been reached. Talking points written. Grant money applied for and received. Bringing actual "science" into the discussion would prove to be very inconvenient. So they wouldn't even let the article be questioned.).

[SloanHater]

Because if he's a "reasonable scientist" his data and methods should stand up to the scrutiny of a mere propagandist.

Talk to "Nature" about who the propagandists are. (Nature is the journal that published the original "hockey stick" article that really got the AGW ball rolling. Nature refused to even accept for review the article that thoroughly disproved the hockey stick article and showed its author to be either incompetent or an outright fraud. To "Nature," consensus had already been reached. Talking points written. Grant money applied for and received. Bringing actual "science" into the discussion would prove to be very inconvenient. So they wouldn't even let the article be questioned.).

Just like providing a birth certificate right?

[Indy Coug]

Just like providing a birth certificate right?

You completely ducked all of the relevant points statman made. statman wins.

[SloanHater]

You completely ducked all of the relevant points statman made. statman wins.

I didn't realize there were any relevant points.