anything sponsored by NBC will always have pro-govt stance about it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."
anything sponsored by NBC will always have pro-govt stance about it.
70's - ice age coming, if the commies aren't here first
80's - nukes and AIDS
90's - Y2K will getchya
00's - bird flu, terrorism and global warming
any guesses what the paranoias of the new decade could be?
electomagnetic radiations?
the aztec calendar?
Had to laugh at the news tonight; they were predicting a 1.4 metre sea level rise by 2100.
Considering the sea levels haven't altered in about what? oh; 100 million years or whatever, and now we are going to have a massive one in less than 100 years.
yeah.......
With all the wild accusations flying around over the illegally obtained email correspondence from the University of East Climate Research Unit, I thought I would ask one of the scientists in the middle of the issue to provide some context.
Penn State University climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann, whose name appears in some of the stolen emails, provided me with a run-down of the emails that involve him. His responses provide some much needed context and give you an idea of just how wildly some people have blown this story out of proportion.......and so on.
We are at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. War and economic depression constitute the real crisis, yet both the governments and the media have focused their attention on the environmental devastation resulting from CO2 emissions, which is upheld as the greatest threat to humanity.
How can "delight" at the death of a sceptic be taken "out of context"?I think the thing being I am aware that anyone capable of getting hold of, for example, my emails could easily make a case of (almost), anything out of context...
How can "delight" at the death of a sceptic be taken "out of context"?
Or be taken to have any relevance at all to the subject matter at hand? I suggest sticking to the data and the assumptions going in to the modelling so as to give us our best guess for the long term trends rather than paying any attention whatsoever to the personalities at play, be they Al Gore or Andrew Bolt.
Temperature
From the beginning of January 2006, we have replaced the various grid-box temperature anomaly (from the base period 1961-90) datasets with new versions, HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3 (see Brohan et al., 2006). The datasets have been developed in conjunction with Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office. These datasets will be updated at roughly monthly intervals into the future. Hemispheric and global averages as monthly and annual values are available as separate files.
This text gives some brief information to users about the datasets including:
.....so on....
As I see it, there are two key issues here.
First, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Pat Michaels are arguing that Phil Jones and colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) willfully, intentionally, and suspiciously “destroyed” some of the raw surface temperature data used in the construction of the gridded surface temperature datasets.
Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC “discernible human influence” conclusions.....so on
If climategate leads to greater openness and transparency in climate science, and makes it less partisan, it will have done a good thing.
I am a climate scientist who worked in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the 1990s. I have been reflecting on the bigger lessons to be learned from the stolen emails, some of which were mine. One thing the episode has made clear is that it has become difficult to disentangle political arguments about climate policies from scientific arguments about the evidence for man-made climate change and the confidence placed in predictions of future change. The quality of both political debate and scientific practice suffers as a consequence.
From Mike Hulme's article, The Science and Politics of Climate Change
(Wall Street Journal 02/12/09)
Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete.
Intro:
Remainder of article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574571613215771336.html
In the past two weeks, scientists like myself have been gripped by news of the theft and online release of more than a decade of e-mails from one of the world's leading centers for climate-change research, the Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at Britain's University of East Anglia. During these same weeks, world political leaders have been preparing for a climate summit in Copenhagen and a new study has indicated that a major ice sheet in eastern Antarctica, previously thought to be stable, is in fact losing mass. But those developments have been clouded by the stolen e-mails and what they may imply about how research into human-induced global warming is carried out....