Archaeologica.org

You might care to read this Min. Global warming or not, this is not the manner in which scientists should act if they wish people to believe what they tell them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... world.html

Roy.

This guy has connected all the dots.
And you can download his trail.
It seems to be well named by those that call it “ClimateGate.”

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming ... -timeline/

There was a famous quote that came out of the original “gate.”

“Follow the money.”

Here are some from him on this one.

“The story that emerges is not of a smoking gun, but of a 30-year time bomb whose fuse was lit in 1981, when — despite only a handful of scientists supporting it — the AGW theory was championed, without question, by the Press.”

“Lest there be any doubt that these scientists did anything wrong, Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology explains what the CRU documents reveal: “They are unambiguously dealing with things that are unethical and in many cases illegal. … We have scientists manipulating raw temperature data. … The willingness to destroy data rather than release it. The avoidance of Freedom of Information requests.” [66] Consequently while, the UEA and Pennsylvania State University said they were investigating the matter, the UK Met Office (which works closely with the CRU and relies heavily on its product) announced a three-year project to re-examine 160 years of temperature data, signalling its own lack of confidence in the CRU-based temperature record.”

And his conclusion?

“Science has come full-circle, taking a page from the medieval Church by using fear and persecution to silence skeptics. The oppressed have become the oppressors. Given that most professional scientific bodies and peer-reviewed journals have been active accomplices in this scandal, one wonders how many other so called scientific consensuses have been similarly engineered and waiting for their own ClimateGates before truth is known.”

The only problem with all this is that there has been too many powerful people that have been convinced to spend too much money for the truth to ever be acknowledged.

The 'Believers' will simply carry on believing kb.

Roy.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 172252.htm

Scientists are reporting that "biochar" -- a material that the Amazonian Indians used to enhance soil fertility centuries ago -- has potential in the modern world to help slow global climate change. Mass production of biochar could capture and sock away carbon that otherwise would wind up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.

And, they apparently also obtained excellent crop yields from such soil.

Do you wonder there are skeptics. The IPCC won't have any feet to stand on soon if they keep on shooting themselves there.
I think the time has come for a complete reappraisal iof the 'evidense'.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152 ... ge-scandal

Roy.

Skepticism is fine....personally I love it....but let's not pretend that glaciers aren't melting as this photo spread shows.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/ar ... ADH401.DTL

Not arguing that all Min, just pointing out where the IPPC got its statement from.
The report from the Indian scientists states that they are melting, I don't think that's in dispute, just how little research the IPPC will use to support its ideas. Bad science does a cause no good at all.

Roy.

If they're melting, they're melting. The issue is what impact does human activity have on the process.

For years the anti-GW coalition has been funded by energy companies so let's not pretend that they do not have a vested interest in this, either.

Min. I ain't arguing one way or 'tother, I'm bitching about promoting bad science, my argument is the same whether that science is pro or anti.
Our government took us to war in Iraq partly based on a dossier they copied, spelling mistakes included, from the Net!
For all I know the antis are lying in their teeth as well! Also remember that the CRU over here has had millions from our government as well as the EU, so the vested interest point, though valid, is double edged.

Roy.

Well this is something I hadn’t thought of.
I expected cargo ships.
But this makes a lot of sense.
If they lay it the summer, they can still use it in the winter.

Does anybody know if you have to pay “rent” to a nation when you lay a cable across their sea bed?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bi ... e=20100121

Global warming has melted so much Arctic ice that a telecommunication group is moving forward with a project that was unthinkable just a few years ago:

Perhaps they are only imagining it?

I have repeatedly tried to steer a middle line on this, specifically arguing about 'lousy science' etc and have stated in the past that if I found an article that fitted that category from the 'other' side I'd post it.
From today's Telegraph.

Experts claim that the loss of ice climbs is a poor indicator of reduction in mountain ice, as climbers can knock down or damage ice formations with their ice axes and crampons!

I'd say that was a pretty good example!
Perhaps we should start a new section entitled 'Bull Shit!' we've seen enough of it over the years on all sorts of subjects.

Roy.

Digit wrote: Perhaps we should start a new scetion entitled 'Bull Shit!' we've seen enough of it over the years on all sorts of subjects.

Roy.

Hear Hear! I'll second that!

Dig. I think that is the first time I've ever seen you write the words "bull shit!"


(And it couldn't have come at a better time.)

I reserve such comments only for the true artists in stupidity Min! Now all we need is you to come up with a cartoon of some climber chipping away at a glacier with his ice axe to complete the absurdity.

Roy.