Sirius Weekly Thread Week April 12

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Definitely no hope for you . Even when scientists say its getting warmer you maker warmer mean colder. Love the way your brain works. Absolutely fascinating.

Even lindsey Graham (conservative republican) thinks your point of view is wacko.

---

Phil Jones used to be totally on your side, even he has said that "no statistical increase of global temp. happen since 1996.


Hey now Lindsey Graham calls himself a republican, most dont call him a conservative. He is a progressive republican and watch what happens when he is up for relection in a few years. He might be joining his old buddy John McCain another progressive republican. (humm what was it I told you would happen in these election (over a year ago)).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Based on your logic if the Republicans take control of Congress in 2010 then they would have sole responsiblity for the economy. Oh how i wish the Republicans take back Congress in 2010. Cant wait to see you once again demonstrate your hypocrisy.
Reminder Bush/Cheney had control over all branches of govt for 6 years during which Bush vetoed not ONE piece of legislation. In other words he had control over all policy. During the 2 years Democrats controlled the Congress Bush vetoed every piece of Dem. legislation. I think logic would suggest that the BUCK STOPS WITH BUSH. in your preverted logic black is white, Warmer is colder, Democratic is Socialist, and Fox is truth. LMFAO.

---

Dumbass, I told you already long ago when Bush and the republicans approved that drug program that was the end for them. That is because unlike your liberial ideology we make the people pay for their frick ups. The only reason the democrats are in power now is because the democrats stand behind there frick ups. Charle Rangle anybody if that dolt was a republican his ass would have been tossed long ago. We dont put people who have been brought up on charges and then censored by congress in charge of the juditary committee (John Connors) and Yea thats right we all believe he knew nothing about his wife taking money (bribery) (wasn't that the samething he was charged with, what a quintessence, yes I am being sarcastic). I wonder how he is doing with her in jail, 3 years is a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john

Because the governments are forcing them to, you twit. What do you think our government is doing when they tell the car companies they have to have an average MPG of 35 MPG. Listen so it is clear you dumb twit, there is a reason the car companies fought those regulations tooth and nail EVERYTIME the government did it. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT WAS. God are you a twit, that you cant even get that simple common sense fact, just shows why it is useless to argue with you. Even the dumbest people on this board cant be that dumb to believe you anymore.

---

Once again you distort the facts. Consumers in the marketplace were voting with their pocketbooks and buying smaller, and more energy efficient cars that the Japanese were producing. The American car companies were slow to recognize the change and were failing in the marketplace.
I am glad that this govt is forcing the American car companies to produce more energy effecient cars as that will help consumers pocket books in the long run, and make us less dependent on foreign energy sources in the long term.
Govts in the past got us hooked on what was then cheap oil, gas and coal and now they can be responsible and move us in a new and saner direction.
We are competing in a global marketplace and ALL countries are moving toward hybrids, and electrics because they recognize the benefits of that switch just as industries are being pushed to recognize that refrigerators, fans, light sources and all the rest can be made way more energy effecient and save us all money in the long run. You think only about short term solutions and its about time we think about the long term future for once.

Thank god you arent running our car companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john

Dumbass, I told you already long ago when Bush and the republicans approved that drug program that was the end for them. That is because unlike your liberial ideology we make the people pay for their frick ups. The only reason the democrats are in power now is because the democrats stand behind there frick ups. Charle Rangle anybody if that dolt was a republican his ass would have been tossed long ago. We dont put people who have been brought up on charges and then censored by congress in charge of the juditary committee (John Connors) and Yea thats right we all believe he knew nothing about his wife taking money (bribery) (wasn't that the samething he was charged with, what a quintessence, yes I am being sarcastic). I wonder how he is doing with her in jail, 3 years is a long time.

---

I actually believe Charlie Rangel should be out of there but dont tell me there arent plenty of corrupt Republicans in power that should be on their asses as well. i could name John Ensign of Nevada as one. Clearly he is dishonest.

I will not let you escape your twisted logic about Democrats being responsible for the Bush/Cheney recession. You right wingers like to talk a lot about personal responsibility but as soon as its obvious you ****ed up you start crying mommy. Man up and take your medicine. Bush controlled this country for 8 years and made a HUGE mess. Own up or shut up. Your a liar and a goddamn ideologue.

so if the Republicans take over the Congress in 2010 i EXPECT you follow your absurd logic and say that Repulicans have total control of the economy from that point on. What a joke you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john

Phil Jones used to be totally on your side, even he has said that "no statistical increase of global temp. happen since 1996.


Hey now Lindsey Graham calls himself a republican, most dont call him a conservative. He is a progressive republican and watch what happens when he is up for relection in a few years. He might be joining his old buddy John McCain another progressive republican. (humm what was it I told you would happen in these election (over a year ago)).

---

So a PROGRESSIVE Republican has been Senator in SOUTH CAROLINA for how many years? You are truly a dumbass twit. LOL.
I would call McCain a moderate Republican and i really hope he loses. He has lost his moral compass and might as well be replaced by someone who truly believes what he says.

I am all for true right wingers replacing the moderates in the Republican party. That allow for a real honest debate on the issues.

Any time Big Ben is on the opposite side of me i feel very good indeed. Lol.

A non sequitir for sure but just check the market and SXM and you'll understand.

Did anyone notice what a goddamn chicken hawk this guy John is?

Too afraid to back up his own position with facts and figures.

I ask him for months to tell me when pure hydrogen cars will make up !% of the sales in this country and he avoids answering every time. What a goddamn wuss. Just too scared to even put down on paper anything that will committ himself to backing up his big talk.

He seems to be following in Mr. Cheney's footsteps. They just like to talk big but got nothing to back it up. By the way wasnt Cheney that guy who also said "deficits dont matter". LMFAO.

[QUOTE=john;61344]Phil Jones used to be totally on your side, even he has said that "no statistical increase of global temp. happen since 1996.


House of Commons exonerates Phil Jones

Based on their inquiry and evidence, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason ... to challenge the scientific consensus ... that 'global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity'."
March 30, 2010
We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced….

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community….

Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.

These are quotes from the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee must-read report on Phil Jones and “the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.”

Climatologist Michael Mann called the report an “exoneration” of Jones and said:

Those of us who know Phil personally never had any doubt about this. I’m very pleased to hear that this distinguished panel saw through the dishonest attacks against Phil Jones, and made the correct determination.

The committee’s chair, Phil Willis, Member of Parliament (MP), said in a press conference:

We do believe that Prof Jones has in many ways been scapegoated as a result of what really was a frustration on his part that people were asking for information purely to undermine his research.

The CBS/AP story headlines, “Climategate Researchers Largely Cleared: Investigation Finds No Evidence Supporting Allegations of Tampering with Data or Peer Review Process.

The UK’s Times Online story opens: “The climate scientist at the centre of the row over stolen e-mails has no case to answer and should be reinstated, a crossparty group of MPs says..”

Here are the central findings of the report, The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia:

Conclusion 1: The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.

Conclusion 2: In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity” It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.

Conclusion 3: A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable.

Many other important findings are highlighted throughout the report.

The report expressed concern about how CRU dealt with the Freedom of Information requests and urged more openness and a change in scientific practice:

It is not standard practice in climate science and many other fields to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. We think that this is problematic because climate science is a matter of global importance and of public interest, and therefore the quality and transparency of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data used to generate their published work, including raw data; and it should also be made clear and referenced where data has been used but, because of commercial or national security reasons is not available. Scientists are also, under Freedom of Information laws and under the rules of normal scientific conduct, entitled to withhold data which is due to be published under the peer-review process. In addition, scientists should take steps to make available in full their methodological workings, including the computer codes. Data and methodological workings should be provided via the internet. There should be enough information published to allow verification.

The report was quite tough on the culture that had begun to pervade CRU:

However, a culture of withholding information—from those perceived by CRU to be hostile to global warming—appears to have pervaded CRU’s approach to FOIA requests from the outset. We consider this to be unacceptable.

The Guardian notes that:

The MPs expressed regret that the UK’s deputy information commissioner had made a statement saying, in their words, that “at least some of the requested information should have been disclosed” without his office having conducted a formal investigation. However, they agreed that there was a prima facie case for the university to answer and that the Information Commissioner’s Office should conduct an investigation.

On the matter of the “repeatability and verification” of CRU’s temperature work, the Committee found:

We therefore conclude that there is independent verification, through the use of other methodologies and other sources of data, of the results and conclusions of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

The fact that all the datasets show broadly the same sort of course of instrumental temperature change since the nineteenth century compared to today was why Professor John Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, had the confidence to say that human-induced global warming was, in terms of the evidence to support that hypothesis, “unchallengeable”:

“I think in terms of datasets, of the way in which data is analysed, there will always be some degree of uncertainty but when you get a series of fundamentally different analyses on the basic data and they come up with similar conclusions, you get a [...] great deal of certainty coming out of it.”

Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.

On Jones’ use of the word “trick” in an email about Mann’s Hockey Stick, the Committee found:


“Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the word “trick” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominately caused by human activity. The balance of evidence patently fails to support this view. It appears to be a colloquialism for a “neat” method of handling data.”

On Jones’ use of the phrase “hide the decline”, the Committee found:


“Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the words “hide the decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous.”

Kudos to the MPs for their solid report.

No doubt virtually all of the core findings will be ignored by the anti-science crowd, who will continue to push their while conspiracy theories about climate scientists. For CP readers, however, the findings simply reinforce what scientists have been saying about these e-mails from the beginning:

Nature editorial: “Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real —or that human activities are almost certainly the cause.”
Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails
Here’s what we know so far: CRU’s emails were hacked, the 2000s will easily be the hottest decade on record, and the planet keeps warming thanks to us!
Michael Mann updates the world on the latest climate science and responds to the illegally hacked emails
Select Committee Staff Analysis debunks stolen climate email myths

I’ll end with the final paragraph of the Nature editorial from back in December:

In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are human beings — and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that undermine scientific values. Yet it is precisely in such circumstances that researchers should strive to act and communicate professionally, and make their data and methods available to others, lest they provide their worst critics with ammunition. After all, the pressures the UEA e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge as the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists use every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and science.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu90_BN...st-phil-jones/

Wikipedia

Philip D. Jones (born 1952) is a climatologist at the University of East Anglia, where he works as a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences. Jones holds a BA in Environmental Sciences from the University of Lancaster, and an MSc and PhD from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

His research interests include instrumental climate change, palaeoclimatology, detection of climate change and the extension of riverflow records in the UK. He has also published papers on the temperature record of the past 1000 years.

He is notable for maintaining the time series of the instrumental temperature record.[1] This work was featured prominently in both the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports, where he was a contributing author to Chapter 12, Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes, of the Third Assessment Report[2] and a Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 3, Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change, of the AR4.[3]

He headed the UEA's Climatic Research Unit jointly with Jean Palutikof from 1998-2004 and by himself from 2004.[4] He temporarily stepped aside from this position in November 2009 following a controversy over e-mails which hackers acquired and published.[5] The House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry concluded that there was no case against Jones for him to answer, and said he should be reinstated in his post.[6]

He is an ISI highly cited researcher.[7]



The March 20th -26th cover story of The Economist, “Spin, science and climate change,” deftly bypasses the politics surrounding ‘climategate’, to tackle the more important issue: whether any of this has any bearing on climate change science and policy. This is a refreshing bit of journalism that everyone should read.

This is, below, a post after the article. How true it is.

I know someone, a nonscientist and “skeptic,” who read the Economist piece and *only* took away, as truth, the few things that Eric notes as errors — for example, the misunderstanding that IPCC forecasts have that huge 1.1-6.4 degree uncertainty; that climate data were hidden; and so forth.

I’m learning not to underestimate how powerfully people can filter information, so they assimilate only those bits they believe confirm their prejudices

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ot-disappoint/

The Oxburgh report on the science done at the CRU has now been published and….. as in the first inquiry, they find no scientific misconduct, no impropriety and no tailoring of the results to a preconceived agenda, though they do suggest more statisticians should have been involved. They have also some choice words to describe the critics.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...quiry-reports/

I have to jump into this "debate". Global warming is the biggest farce ever perpetrated on the American people. Al Gore is the biggest clown ever to sit in the VP seat. From what I have read, if China is not on board it really does not matter. My main question is why does anyone care? This going green bullshit is a money maker nothing more. We will all be dead and gone before anything really changes. As for this Hybrid debate has anyone ever thought about getting hit in one of these tiny cars? If my grill hits your windshield how will 60 mpg help you then? Suv/truck hits any small car, usually bad for small car.

Any government incentives to purchase, whether it be a car or home, is taking sales from the future and moving them to now. In a few months when the numbers come out, after the 8000 rebate has ended, sales will drop back to their normal level and then go lower. Government does not do too many things all that well, why do we need them to get involved in more?

Seacrest Out!