the artic ice is melting!

[blatzer]

it's really simple, there is a lot of money to be made, and there are shills willing to write for a price
repeat after me: carbon tax, green tax, sustainablity tax, earth tax, gaia tax, mother nature tax, breathing tax, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
no one has answered the question; if the science was so locked in, why did they fudge all their data ?

[turk]

The science isn't locked in. They like to pretend it is to forward their agenda/religion. Ocean circulation patterns are effected by arctic ice melt. So what? I suppose it's just a given that man causes the arctic ice melt each year. Look up the NOAA link about the arctic ice melt in the 1920's. It was melting at an accelerating alarming rate for a while back then too.

[RussellK]

no one has answered the question; if the science was so locked in, why did they fudge all their data ?

Perhaps because your question has too many assumptions. It incriminates the science you disagree with as being suspect for having fudged all their data. Its a moot point. Not all science fudged their data and not all data was fudged.

[turk]

It's not a "moot point" at all. If the science was locked in, there would be no Climategate. The emails point to tribalism and bullying in the peer-review of publications on climatology; which results in misleading assumptions like the fake paper put out this year by Stephen Schneider (about statistics of climate skeptics in the climate science establishment). The Hockey Stick graph is a misleading piece of "data" based on questionable data and methodology. Was it deliberate fraud? I think so, but there's no way to prove it apparently yet. It was an honest mistake. But it sure got some attention and some more grant money. Blatzer's point.

[Velokid1]

no one has answered the question; if the science was so locked in, why did they fudge all their data ?

Perhaps because your question has too many assumptions. It incriminates the science you disagree with as being suspect for having fudged all their data. Its a moot point. Not all science fudged their data and not all data was fudged.

This is true, whether these boys want to admit it or not.

If we find a study by scientists whose findings disproved global warming but it turns out the results were fudged, does that one study prove global warming? Of course not.

You guys point the finger at "the money" but you consistently fail to realize the money behind the stance you are taking.

And you point the finger at "bad science" but never consider that bad science bolsters your own arguments, as well.

Don't point at others accusing them of being hoodwinked sheep and then the next thing out of your mouth is involuntary bleating.

[Amskeptic]

It's not a "moot point" at all. If the science was locked in, there would be no Climategate. The emails point to tribalism and bullying in the peer-review of publications on climatology;

As seen with the latest snafu at Harvard vs Big-Pharma, the corporate interests of the status-quo money machine is what distorts research into junk.

And I promise you, turk, you will find the Big Money twisting the research against global warming . . . at least until they find a profit motive to make them change their minds mid-stream. Meanwhile, those scientists who love their work, who seek answers from the place of great curiosity, who cannot be bothered by the nattering fools, will continue to pursue their queries with a greater purity of purpose than I think you are aware of.

Ferdinand Porsche was like that. He loved his engineering inquiry and sought to find answers. That Hitler underwrote his pursuit was secondary to his discoveries, as we all get to appreciate to this day.

My intuition can pick up pure research vs heavily underwritten research. I experienced it at U.C.L.A. That may be why I sensed all along that the Harvard study of bipolar disorder in children stank to high heaven and would finally be exposed as marketing:

Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption
By Marcia Angell
Side Effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and a Bestselling Antidepressant on Trial
by Alison Bass
Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill

Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drugs
by Melody Petersen
Sarah Crichton/Farrar, Straus and Giroux

Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness
by Christopher Lane
Yale University Press

Recently Senator Charles Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has been looking into financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and the academic physicians who largely determine the market value of prescription drugs. He hasn't had to look very hard.

Take the case of Dr. Joseph L. Biederman, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and chief of pediatric psychopharmacology at Harvard's Massachusetts General Hospital. Thanks largely to him, children as young as two years old are now being diagnosed with bipolar disorder and treated with a cocktail of powerful drugs, many of which were not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for that purpose and none of which were approved for children below ten years of age.

Legally, physicians may use drugs that have already been approved for a particular purpose for any other purpose they choose, but such use should be based on good published scientific evidence. That seems not to be the case here. Biederman's own studies of the drugs he advocates to treat childhood bipolar disorder were, as The New York Times summarized the opinions of its expert sources, "so small and loosely designed that they were largely inconclusive."[1]

In June, Senator Grassley revealed that drug companies, including those that make drugs he advocates for childhood bipolar disorder, had paid Biederman $1.6 million in consulting and speaking fees between 2000 and 2007. Two of his colleagues received similar amounts. After the revelation, the president of the Massachusetts General Hospital and the chairman of its physician organization sent a letter to the hospital's physicians expressing not shock over the enormity of the conflicts of interest, but sympathy for the beneficiaries: "We know this is an incredibly painful time for these doctors and their families, and our hearts go out to them."


So, who is throwing money at climate change research? You may go off half-cocked that Al Gore & Hysterics, INC. must be throwing money at it, that there is Big Money already committed to Cap and Trade before it even has been threshed out, and you would be dead wrong.

Coal and Oil interests, meanwhile, have funded hundreds of little innocuous and poorly spelled websites and "citizen groups" to harrangue fearful Americans that doing anything about global warming will most certainly lead to "lost jobs".

Oy.
Colin

[turk]

Well, I suggest you read more. There are plenty of papers supporting "global warming", but what is the physical evidence connecting it to man? You don't need any further counter than the lack of physical evidence to leave the door open for science to continue its work. Who are the political entities calling for "action". This is where the line is blurred between science and politics. Cap and Trade anyone? Green Jobs? Uh-huh. Go try finding one. It's all marketing, PR, and policy research, then a few high level engineering and or management jobs. Go look it up. It's a huge scam. To do what? Create another bubble. What's that got us before?

[RussellK]

GAH!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU ALWAYS DENY THE MUDDY FOOTPRINTS IN THE KITCHEN ARE YOURS????????

[hambone]

42 pages for
"yes it is"
and
"no it isn't"
you guys are truly nuts.

Me, I just listen to my toaster. Well I do most of the talking but what a wonderful listener she is. Yes, she. Her name is Martha. (pre groan:) and man is she HOT.

[RussellK]

says the guy with 11,155 posts

[turk]

Thou doth protest too much. If this bothers you, er, um, GET A LIFE!

[airkooledchris]

[hambone]

Keep me out of it, I stopped arguing global warming 3 pages back.
Haven't you noticed I don't post so-much any more?
Well maybe a little. I just have a soft spot in my head.

[turk]

Ok. Sit on the sidelines and comment either way. It's enlightening, relevant, and hammiesque.

[hambone]

Someone once called it th Beehive-wiener-poke. I guess we all must do our part during these Hard Times.