Comments on: Consensus? What consensus?

By: Clothcap

Clothcap — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:40:28 +0000

Hi Jo, his tie should be red with green stripes.

Report this

0 0

By: McHarris

McHarris — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:14:24 +0000

http://just-me-in-t.site40.net/1_19_What-Concensus-.html

I also got hot under the collar when THEY pushed the scientific consensus argument down our throats

Report this

0 0

By: McHarris

McHarris — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:05:41 +0000

BUT THERE IS an alternative party me thinks
have you looked into http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/

Report this

0 0

By: Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:41:41 +0000

AGW says: Everyone knows the petition is bogus and filled with duplicate and fake names.

Just for the un-official record, about a year or so ago someone did a trace on the IP addresses of those fake name.

With just a couple exceptions they originated from virtually the same ISP (?) as the folks who host (Surprise! Surprise!) RealClimate.org

Report this

0 0

By: Bernd Felsche

Bernd Felsche — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:38:14 +0000

Further to my earlier posting on this topic, the Senja Post’s published paper published in 2008 has a foreword by Hans Kepplinger which says in part (loosely translated from stratospheric German):

The debate has gathered its own momentum as a result of the connections merely outlined here; unrelated to climate change itself. Numerous groups drive the discussion, promoting their own interests in the name of climate. Not the last of these groups is the UN, attempting to find legitimacy by engaging in climate politics; as it no longer plays a significant role in any global political hot-spots. Discussions are likely to grow all the more intensive and passionate for these reasons, as climate research contradics catatrophic scenarios.

Report this

2 0

By: P Gosselin

P Gosselin — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:49:37 +0000

Consensus? Hmmm
500 peer-reviewed papers doubting AGW.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Report this

2 0

By: co2isnotevil

co2isnotevil — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:46:11 +0000

Rod, re #6

It’s the same scientists who write models using assumptions about how they think the climate should behave and then use the models to prove the assumptions.

George

Report this

2 0

By: co2isnotevil

co2isnotevil — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:26:49 +0000

Much of the data homogenization seems to be justified by a paper (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987) where they claimed than temperature anomalies are correlated out to 1000 km. Even in the case of a completely homogeneous surface (i.e. across the oceans), this is wrong and even the paper says that near the equator, there is little to no spatial correlation at that distance. There’s also an effort to infer changes over the ocean from land changes (i.e. 1000 km circle around an island) and to infer change in mountains by changes at sea level. The error analysis used to claim correlation relative to error bars, was, surprise, surprise, the result of a GCM (model).

George

Report this

2 0

By: Lionell Griffith

Lionell Griffith — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:30:05 +0000

Eddy,

It is simply one more demonstration that when you are at war with reality you WILL lose. The only interesting questions are how many victims do you take down in the process and how do the potential victims avoid being collateral damage? The ball is still spinning on the answers. However, our prospects are looking a bit better.

Report this

2 0

By: Eddy Aruda

Eddy Aruda — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:09:49 +0000

Lionell Griffith @ 21 & 22

I was scrolling down to post the link to John Coleman’s special on Global Warming when I noticed that you had already done so. Thank you for doing it. After watching the segment I am more convinced than ever that the “consensus” will be exposed for the mirage that it is. Actually, “consensus” may need to be redefined as: conned out of our senses. I was amazed to see the Bolivia effect mentioned and was glad to see Joe D’Aleo discussing how the data is “homogenized” in this country (USA). As I have written before, as they follow the money trail the fraud they will uncover will add dimensions to the climategate scandal that will cause it to rival Watergate. I am still predicting indictments probably before the year is out. There is too much riding on this for it to go away. The politicians in the U.S. are beginning to see the opportunity for gain, various law enforcement agencies are investigating the scandal and the bounty being offered to rat out Mann and company will result in the “perfect storm’, a trifecta unfavorable to the “consensus.” For climate alarmists, this is the year of living dangerously.

Report this

4 0