Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Have faith

May 30, 2013

While I agree with Mr. Mannello's article about climate change because of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, our options are few....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(88)

USABorn

May-31-13 8:23 AM

ToTEXASfromPA - 9:09 AM

"Mr Knauff - I think you're looking at too small of a window. According to NASA the average global temperature between 1940 and 1960 actually dropped, and not just a little."

During that time, I was working at the NASA installation Redstone Arsenal, and remember when the NASA head honcho came out and warned we were headed for another ice age.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-30-13 10:15 PM

"Then, in November 2011, another raft of ClimateGate e-mails was released ..."

So you missed my series of posts below showing the results of 6 different, independent investigations, on 2 different continents?

Why is it that lunatics like boobie so often seem frozen in time? In this case a time before EVERY investigation into it found no wrong doing.

Another thing about "climategate". What ever happened to the people that illegally hacked the emails? Are they in jail where they belong? Remember when Sarah Palin's email was hacked, and all the wingers wanted the person that did the hack drawn and quartered? Why the double standard in this case?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

May-30-13 9:16 PM

Let's see.. should we believe the vast majority of earths climate scientists, perhaps as high as 95%, or.. enigma. Hmm..not a tough choice.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-30-13 8:09 PM

"928 papers = thousands and thousands of scientist"

So yes, had you not just invented that number, and there were only ever 928 papers written that supported anthropogenic global warming, that would in fact constitute "thousands and thousands of scientists."

Nice doing business with you.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-30-13 8:07 PM

Psst, boobie. I know you don't really know anything about science, but allow me to tip you off that most scientific papers have from 2-10 listed authors.

Still have no idea what orifice you jerked the number 928 out of, but that's a separate issue. Suffices to say that virtually everything you post here is completely wrong, flawed, or irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-30-13 6:26 PM

I just cited the results of a half dozen independent investigations, conducted on 2 continents that refute what you claim.

My question is, why weren't you aware of the results of these investigations? It took me just a minute to get this data.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-30-13 6:24 PM

...

"In May 2010 Senator Jim Inhofe requested the Inspector General of the United States Department of Commerce to conduct an independent review of how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had dealt with the emails, and whether the emails showed any wrongdoing. The report, issued on 18 February 2011, cleared the researchers and "did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures"

"The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation closed an investigation on 15 August 2011 that exonerated Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University of charges of scientific misconduct. It found no evidence of research misconduct, and confirmed the results of earlier inquiries."

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-30-13 6:23 PM

...

"The EPA issued a detailed report on issues raised by petitioners and responses, together with a fact sheet, and a "myths versus facts" page stating that "Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised."

...

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-30-13 6:20 PM

"The East Anglia emails reveal that the data cited was adjusted by these "scientists""

That's not at all what was shown, but don't believe me:

"The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit.""

"The second Investigatory Committee reported on 4 June 2010 that it had "determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community." "

"First announced in December 2009, a British investigation commissioned by the UEA and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, published its final report in July 2010.[105] The commission cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data."

...

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-30-13 6:16 PM

And what may I ask is "Popular Technology"?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

May-30-13 5:50 PM

Chris - you might consider googling - 97% claim climate false - and read the Popular Technology article that comes up.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

May-30-13 5:45 PM

"The data that did show warming has been shown to be faked"

The East Anglia emails reveal that the data cited was adjusted by these "scientists" and that the original data and the paper trail from these adjustments were destroyed after they published their adjusted data. This is not a sound scientific method. Without the ability to go back and analyze the original data and see how it was adjusted, the adjusted data has no merit. It may have been true. It may have been fraudulent. But we can never know.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

May-30-13 5:42 PM

Of course it's useless to you. You don't have the training to interpret it.

Neither do you, Chris.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

May-30-13 5:40 PM

Can I ask two question about this guy Anthony Watts who's garbage your pimping here.

No, he isn't a climatologist. But he actually talked to climatologists who were cited in your bogus 97% claim you keep repeating, unlike the IOP that simply read their papers and inferred from them that they must agree with AGW. Watt talked to these climatologists and they told him that they were taken out of context by the IOP.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-30-13 5:40 PM

"The data that did show warming has been shown to be faked"

Not only is that not true, but more than that, nobody would have any motivation to fake climate data. That's why in the scientific world there exists a system of peer review.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-30-13 5:38 PM

"I've looked at the data and it is useless"

Of course it's useless to you. You don't have the training to interpret it. You're talking about one of the most complex things in the scientific world. Why would you think that you could look at hundreds of thousands, or even millions of data points, and say "oh I see what's going on". And please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to imply you can't understand it because you're stupid. I'm saying you can't understand it because you haven't dedicated a decade of your life or more to understanding it.

Climatology isn't really carpentry, or small engine repair, or gardening.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

May-30-13 5:11 PM

When all of you global warming lemmings has actually reviewed the data, let me know. Until then I'll just ignore your uninformed "consensus" opinions. I've looked at the data and it is useless. There is no evidence that any of man's activities is causing warming, or that there is indeed warming going on. The data that did show warming has been shown to be faked, and there has never been any data real or faked that showed that the fake warming was man-made. When you can speak scientifically about it, I'll be glad to show you where you're wrong.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-30-13 4:58 PM

Can I ask two question about this guy Anthony Watts who's garbage your pimping here.

Is he a trained climatologist, or a weatherman (meteorologist)?

How many times has his work been published in scientific journals?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-30-13 4:54 PM

"John Cook, the Warmer"

Why would you call someone "the warmer"? Are you implying he warms things?

Oh wait, that's right. A conservative Weekly World News level tabloid in the UK said that global warming stopped in 1998, even though the warmest 12 month span ever recorded on earth happend 11 years after that.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-30-13 4:51 PM

"Was he wrong? Did he make up what he said about those 97% saying that they were taken out of context?"

Yes and apparently so.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-30-13 4:50 PM

"So it's OK for John Cook, the Warmer you aligned yourself with, takes scientific papers out of context and puts words in the mouths of those scientists in order to show support for Global Warming"

So can you explain if that's true why the study would be published by the prestigious Institute of Physics.

No, wait, I know. In on the conspiracy, right?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

May-30-13 4:11 PM

So it's OK for John Cook, the Warmer you aligned yourself with, takes scientific papers out of context and puts words in the mouths of those scientists in order to show support for Global Warming. That's some pretty sound scientific method you're citing there Chris.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

May-30-13 3:52 PM

So Vince, were you aware that the guy whose website your sending people to is jacked in with the Heartland Institute, that put up those lunatic billboards last year?

Was he wrong? Did he make up what he said about those 97% saying that they were taken out of context?

Or is this another case of you Liberals not being to argue the facts and instead choose to discredit the messenger.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-30-13 3:44 PM

So Vince, were you aware that the guy whose website your sending people to is jacked in with the Heartland Institute, that put up those lunatic billboards last year?

If you want to check out who is behind this guy, simply google "Unabomber Fiasco Was Tame By Heartland Institute Standards".

Very eye opening.

You clearly aren't very good with "the google" Vince, but perhaps you should make a point of sharpening your skills so you can check out the people you publicly align yourself with a little better.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-30-13 3:33 PM

Clever Josh. Here allow me to help you out. In the first quote, I was CLEARLY referring to CO2 emissions.

In the second quote I was talking about SMOG in Chinese cities.

So I'm curious if you didn't understand that, or do you think that smog and CO2 are the same thing?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 88 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web