well its settled

lewisje can only communicate through comics

6/16/2014 4:05:47 PM

stop being such a rethug

6/16/2014 4:09:03 PM

6/16/2014 5:24:16 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ncs-outer-banks-got-a-scary-forecast-about-climate-change-so/2014/06/24/0042cf96-f6f3-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

6/25/2014 10:27:41 AM

The Outer Banks are a series of large sand bars. They're not permanent and no amount of money will make that so. 5,000 years ago they didn't even exist. The study quoted in the article states that sea level rise will be 39 inches over the next 85 years. That's 11.65mm/year. However over the last decade sea level rise has been 2.4mm/year, and the decade before that just 3.4mm/year.

Not that it doesn't suck for the residents of the Outer Banks, but to blame this on AGW is a fool's errand. They also shouldn't be naive about the type of land on which they reside.

6/26/2014 2:22:35 PM

Who's willing to bet that the scientifically illiterate GOP in the NCGA will rush through sea wall construction measures that will only serve to destroy the Outer Banks quicker?

6/26/2014 2:47:02 PM

^ That would require acknowledging that the sea level is actually rising.

6/26/2014 4:57:38 PM

^^no arguing how disastrous that would be

^given that the sea level has been rising for thousands of years, I'm sure they're aware of it. They just probably think it's God's work.

6/27/2014 8:52:22 AM

Conservatives Don't Deny Climate Science Because They're Ignorant. They Deny It Because of Who They Are.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/06/dan-kahan-climate-change-ideology-scientific-illiteracy

6/27/2014 9:39:20 AM

Man, Obama got pretty snarky talking about climate change the other day..

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/barack-obama-climate-change-108338.html

Quote :

"“It’s pretty rare that you encounter people who say that the problem of carbon pollution is not a problem,” Obama said. “In most communities and workplaces, they may not know how big a problem it is, they may not know exactly how it works, they may doubt they can do something about it. Generally they don’t just say, ‘No I don’t believe anything scientists say.’ Except, where?” he said, waiting for the more than accommodating crowd to call back, “Congress!” Obama smiled — not his big toothy self-satisfied grin, but his stick-it-in-the-ribs smirk. “In Congress,” he said. “Folks will tell you climate change is hoax or a fad or a plot. A liberal plot.” Then, Obama said, there are the people who duck the question. “They say, hey, I’m not a scientist, which really translates into, I accept that man-made climate change is real, but if I say so out loud, I will be run out of town by a bunch of fringe elements that thinks climate science is a liberal plot so I’m going to just pretend like, I don’t know, I can’t read,” Obama said. “I mean, I’m not a scientist either, but I’ve got this guy, John Holdren, he’s a scientist,” Obama added to laughter. “I’ve got a bunch of scientists at NASA and I’ve got a bunch of scientists at EPA.” “I’m not a doctor either, but if a bunch of doctors tell me that tobacco can cause lung cancer, then I’ll say, okay. Right? I mean, it’s not that hard,” Obama said, managing not to mention that he kept smoking himself at least through his first term."

[Edited on June 27, 2014 at 1:51 PM. Reason : :]

6/27/2014 1:49:29 PM

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/

^Lol, I guess Obama really doesnt give a shit anymore? Cant say that I blame him. Not exactly the most presidential behavior but obviously he has to still appeal to those snark-loving individuals glued to Comedy Central news.

6/30/2014 5:04:32 PM

Its not like arguing facts with these people will get him anywhere.

[Edited on June 30, 2014 at 6:21 PM. Reason : sometimes ya gotta just point and laugh]

6/30/2014 6:20:40 PM

I guess they were right about global warming. It's getting so hot in Yellowstone that roads are melting!!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/travel/yellowstone-road-melting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

And they say we don't listen to science. Pffffft!

7/15/2014 5:57:29 PM

ruh roh... peer review was rigged...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/10/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/
I wonder if Mann really did "change what peer review means". OK, I'm really kidding, cause none of this had anything to do with AGW research... Or did it?

The NAS lets certain people pick their own reviewers for peer-review... Nice!
http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-publishing-the-inside-track-1.15424

A bigger thing making the rounds now is talking about the temperature adjustment process at USHCN and how blatantly biased and unfounded it is. That and Michael "I'm a giant fraud" Mann getting a judgement "in his favour" for $250 in damages regarding the Climategate emails.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/virginia-supreme-court-awards-a-paltry-250-dollars-to-michael-mann.html
I know, the source sucks, but it links to the actual court ruling.

Here's a good column detailing the whitewash "investigations" into the Climategate improprieties
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/09/18/climategate-star-michael-mann-courts-legal-disaster/
TLDR: Most investigations failed to interview key people and were lead by people with clear conflicts of interest. Others came to conclusions that fly in the face of the evidence.

7/16/2014 1:17:36 AM

Why the fuck do you focus on Michael Mann so much? Do you think that bringing him down will nullify all the evidence for global warming? The rest of that has nothing to do with global warming and/or is from a bullshit source. Larry Bell, who wrote the Forbes article, also wrote a book called 'Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax'. Do you not think he has an agenda? You idiot, why do you even bother at this point?

[Edited on July 16, 2014 at 1:39 AM. Reason : duh]

7/16/2014 1:34:21 AM

^Pretty much b/c his "hockey stick" was/is the poster child of the AGW movement.

7/16/2014 8:27:47 AM

"the movement" does not depend on that guy

7/16/2014 8:53:22 AM

Dude you don't have to bust my balls. You know very well that most people didn't care/weren't interested till that graph was plastered all over every report in the early 2000s.

Nowhere did I say he was important to the cause.

7/16/2014 10:09:21 AM

^^^^^

You post a 2012 Forbes article by Larry Bell claiming that Mann's lawsuit would likely "unearth every last jot and tittle of deception by Mann and his partners in fraud" and that it would basically blow up in his face. Then directly above it you post a recent article that tells us Mann won the lawsuit and his science remains widely accepted. This is not the first time, nor the last time, that Larry Bell is totally wrong.

Everything else in that post isn't even related to climate science

7/16/2014 1:02:00 PM

LOL. Insufferable.

7/16/2014 1:05:03 PM

Just more fuel for the fire...
Groups rally around think tank, publication being sued for global warming views

Quote :

"WASHINGTON – News outlets, advocacy groups and fellow think tanks are jumping to the defense of a conservative-leaning D.C. policy center and publication being sued for libel by a scientist who didn't like what they had to say about his work on global warming. Michael Mann, a prominent professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, has long been a target of climate change skeptics for his work claiming temperatures have risen dramatically in recent decades, and has sued before when groups tried to debunk his data. But this time, Mann is being accused of going too far with his case against the Competitive Enterprise Institute, National Review and others. Critics say the suit threatens to violate constitutionally protected rights to opinion and fair comment, particularly in an area of scientific debate. On Monday, The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press -- along with 26 other groups including The Washington Post, Bloomberg and Fox News -- filed an “amici curiae,” or “friend of the court,” brief with the D.C. Court of Appeals. An amici curiae is a brief submitted to a court to raise additional points of view to sway a court’s decision. “While Mann essentially claims that he can silence critics because he is ‘right,’ the judicial system should not be the arbiter of either scientific truth or correct public policy,” the brief states, adding that “a participant in the ‘rough-and-tumble’ of public debate should not be able to use a lawsuit like this to silence his critics, regardless of whether one agrees with Mann or defendants.” The suit was originally filed after Rand Simberg at the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote a piece referring to Mann as “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” because he “molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.” CEI eventually took down the statements but not before National Review writer Mark Steyn picked them up and took it a step further by calling Mann’s research fraudulent. Mann responded by suing CEI, National Review and the authors of the pieces. But others in the media and think tank circuit are using the case to draw a line in the sand. Also coming to their defense are The Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, Individual Rights Foundation and Goldwater Institute. The policy groups filed their own brief in support of CEI and National Review. “Public figures must not be allowed to use the courts to muzzle their critics,” Cato's Ilya Shapiro wrote on the group's website earlier this week. Cato argues that under the First Amendment, there must be room for “the marketplace of ideas to operate.” Shapiro voiced concern that the court could try to judge the defendants' opinions as false by weighing them against EPA findings. “The point in this appeal is that courts should not be coming up with new terms like ‘scientific fraud’ to squeeze debate over issues impacting government policy into ordinary tort law,” Shapiro said. “Dr. Mann is not like a corner butcher falsely accused of putting his thumb on the scale or mixing horsemeat into the ground beef. He is a vocal leader in a school of scientific thought that has had major impact on government policies.” In July, a D.C. court dismissed a claim by the defendants that the statements made against Mann were protected under the First Amendment. The court also ruled that there was enough evidence of “actual malice” for the suit to go forward. CEI’s attorney Sam Kazman argues that “all Americans engaged in public debate and discourse on contentious political issues will be affected by the outcome of our case.” Mann’s case has become a lightning rod in the political battle over global warming and has pit some in the scientific community against conservative-leaning groups and those who say humans are not to blame for changes in climate. In July, the Virginia Supreme Court ordered that the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute pay Mann and the University of Virginia – where Mann had previously worked -- $250 in damages. The Energy and Environmental Legal Institute had wanted to get Mann’s records as part of a campaign to disprove his research on climate change. The court ruled that Mann’s unpublished research, which included emails about global warming, were exempt from the Virginia Freedom of Information Act."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/14/multiple-news-outlets-back-dc-think-tanks-against-global-warming-scientist/?intcmp=latestnews

I know how the Specter of Michael Mann gets some among you all atwitter, so I figured I would share this little trinket.

The real concern actually resides with the existence of such organizations like the aforementioned Energy and Environmental Legal Institute and likewise named dubious front organizations for anti-environmental groups. They set up legit sounding practices/journals only to perpetuate confusion and discredit actual academic scholarship. I mean, wouldn't you trust a publication called "Environmental Research Letters"?

8/14/2014 10:32:15 PM

Quote :

"The suit was originally filed after Rand Simberg at the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote a piece referring to Mann as “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” because he “molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.”"

While absolutely hilarious, I can see why a court might side with Mann over comments like that, it's preposterous they would say that calling his work "fraudulent" is slanderous. It's clearly an opinion, not to mention one that is supported by facts.


What do you think, HR, in the general case, of allowing scientists to sue dissenters simply for dissenting?

8/15/2014 8:49:43 PM

Thankfully, there is already a viable method by which ideas can be disproven or more evidence may be gathered to support...it's called the Scientific Method and the peer review process. There is also a rating system in place in order to bolster a publications' credibility so that the Environmental Research Letters of the world can be called out as the frauds that they are.

If, in the case of Dr. Mann, an organization is making libelous or slanderous commentary in order to damage their professional reputation, then seeking judgement through the courts seems perfectly valid.

8/15/2014 10:14:38 PM

You've dodged the question: is dissent slander

8/15/2014 10:30:51 PM

My understanding of jurisprudence is somewhat limited, but I believe, under the current legal framework, someone is entitled to sue anyone for whatever reason they feel they can persuade a judge and/or jury is viable.

And I may not have played your game directly, but I addressed both dissent and slander in my last post.

8/15/2014 11:45:34 PM

Quote :

"While absolutely hilarious"

Yeah, it's hilarious because it was said about Mann, right? If any legitimate scientific publication made comments like that, heads would roll.

Quote :

"It's clearly an opinion, not to mention one that is supported by facts."

No it isn't. It just a stupid conservative trope that Mann is a fraud. We've been over this.

8/15/2014 11:45:44 PM

Cutting off the end of your model because it doesn't work and then tacking on the observed data borders on fraud, and so the claim is absolutely supported. I'm sorry that you don't like facts, but the core claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have yet to be refuted, no matter what you want to believe to the contrary. (They were actually upheld by the NAS review of Mann's work, except the NAS, while it came up with the same measurements, drew the opposite conclusions, ones which fly in the face of normal statistical analysis.) If you plug in a phonebook into the MBH98 model, you get a hockey stick. Mann claimed otherwise. That's fraud.

8/15/2014 11:50:25 PM

I can see grounds for a scientist being called fraudulent by a news agency to sue. Their entire business and credibility is based on following through a process, and short circuiting that process by trying to use strongly biased media reporting is damaging to their work and threatens peoples' jobs.

Whether or not science itself is fraudulent is determined by other scientists, not idiot reporters (there are other types of fraud reporters are qualified to report on however). The same way that korean scientists eventually got busted is how it's supposed to work.

8/16/2014 12:21:58 AM

Quote :

"the core claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have yet to be refuted"

Actually, they were in 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Disputed_data

But you wouldn't know that because all you hear is what comes from your own echo chamber.

[Edited on August 16, 2014 at 1:40 AM. Reason : .]

8/16/2014 1:36:39 AM

^ you fail so hard. The core claims were not disputed. In fact, in many cases, they were actually upheld, but were instead reported as being disputed. The main "disputes" were niggling details that had zero effect on the substance of the study. Seriously, the NAS report all but vindicates M&M by finding almost the exact same measures of statistical validity, namely none. Also, for Mann to criticize M&M's paper because "it didn't use the data or computer programs that MBH98 used" is patently absurd and incredibly disingenuous: M&M repeatedly asked for the data and computer code and were consistently denied it.

Moving on, looks like Australia is getting caught manipulating temperature data in the same way the US has. I know, it's a blog, but the data is there for anyone to analyze. http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/the-australian-temperature-record-revisited-a-question-of-balance/

And it's the same old story: pre-1970s temperatures are all adjusted downwards while post 1970s temperatures are adjusted upwards.

It's getting significant press in Australia right now: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/26/australian-scientist-calls-for-heads-to-roll-over-adjusted-temperature-data/
He links to the news articles, so get over the fact that it's Watts.


I guess I have to ask the obvious question: if the science is so settled and so indisputable, why are countries around the world (US, UK, Australia) blatantly manipulating the temperature record like this?

8/29/2014 11:18:46 PM

Quote :

"The core claims were not disputed. In fact, in many cases, they were actually upheld, but were instead reported as being disputed. The main "disputes" were niggling details that had zero effect on the substance of the study."

That's cool, you can parrot what some discredited blogger said, while I'll trust a peer-reviewed scientific rebuttal. It only makes you look like an idiot.

Quote :

"McIntyre and McKitrick said that they had not been able to replicate the Mann, Bradley and Hughes results due to problems with the data: although the sparse data for the earlier periods was difficult to analyse, their criticism was comprehensively refuted by Wahl & Ammann 2007"

Quote :

"M&M repeatedly asked for the data and computer code and were consistently denied it."

From the wiki:

Quote :

"The data which MM03 reported difficulty in finding had been available since May 2000 on the public File Transfer Protocol site for the MBH98 paper. "

Sounds like they were actually incompetent, and proceeded to put out a flawed study anyway.

I have no idea what this NAS report is because you have never provided it, but I'm assuming it doesn't show what you/your blogger claim it does since almost everything you say is the opposite of true.

8/30/2014 2:38:24 AM

I still don't understand what republicans think the goal is for some grand global warming hoax. What do liberals stand to gain by lying about global warming?

8/30/2014 10:13:25 AM

According to them, it's about control. On the extreme end, they feel it's a way for the supposed anti-capitalists to take over by destroying industry and "the market." They also feel it's a way to funnel money to Democrats...

Personally, I think screaming about Climate Change is perfect for Republicans because it allows them to obfuscate their actions of systematically dismantling meaningful environmental protection by edict of their ALEC overlords and their general apathy towards conservation. (Yes, yes, I know there are conservatives on this board who are for conservation. My reference was more towards the party platform)

8/30/2014 12:21:32 PM

Yep, liberals are always trying to control things, just like they did with smoking, second-hand smoke, acid rain, etc.

8/30/2014 4:11:57 PM

Quote :

"What do liberals stand to gain by lying about global warming?"

It doesn't really matter if it's the left leaning side of governments intent to gain power through restrictions on energy use, but that de facto is what would be the result. Other than oxygen use, regulation of energy creation and consumption is the most basic way to control someone's life. I don't really see how someone could argue otherwise.

9/2/2014 1:11:33 PM

Lots of posters, ITT.

Protip: don't GIS "the pen is red" at work.

9/2/2014 1:22:00 PM

Quote :

" I don't really see how someone could argue otherwise."

not sure if serious or trolling

9/2/2014 1:25:03 PM

I'm not sure how anyone who is even remotely aware of what happened in West Virginia a few months ago could be against environmental regulations/protection by the government

[Edited on September 2, 2014 at 1:51 PM. Reason : .]

9/2/2014 1:31:42 PM

Ah yes, because everything is directly comparable.

9/2/2014 4:53:43 PM

How/Why do conservatives not believe in global climate change (warming). It is like saying 1+1 = 3.

Fact: 1. Our industrial society releases CO2, methane, and other gasses into the atmosphere. 2. These gasses are scientifically proven to act as greenhouse gasses to hold in atmospheric heat. The gasses don't magically disappear nor does god/jesus bust out a special heaven straw to suck away all the "bad" gasses from the earth to keep things running good.

Are people really that stupid (not counting trailer park conservatives who get their opinions from Rush Limbaugh and Faux News).

OR are people just playing ignorant that climate change does/could affect the earth due their own personal interests. I seriously could take GOP policy more seriously in opposing democrat led environmental legislation if they recognized the potential of climate change but rejected legislation due to:

1.) They assert the magnitude of global warming is exaggerated.
2.) They admit their personal interests in industries that have a lot to lose due to climate change regulation.
3.) They believe that global warming would have a positive impact on society.
4.) Along with #1 above exaggerating the magnitude of global warming, they believe that environmental legislation would have
to much of a severe impact affecting short/intermediate economic goals of the US.

Either way when pundits stamp their foot into the ground denouncing climate change as fake science they get as much credibility from me as the pro-choice crowd, creationism in schools, and birthers.

Republicans just need to man up and admit that Hey I don't give a fuck about climate change because my oil lobbyists friends pay me to shoot down legislation!. Honestly there is nothing wrong with this stance as it's the beauty of having a democratized society.



[Edited on September 23, 2014 at 9:07 AM. Reason : a]

9/23/2014 9:05:10 AM

jeez white ppl are dumb

9/23/2014 10:14:25 AM

Quote :

"The gasses don't magically disappear nor does god/jesus bust out a special heaven straw to suck away all the "bad" gasses from the earth to keep things running good."

I mean, I'm not a climate change denier and I think they're purposefully obtuse, but a non-trivial amount CO2 does get filtered out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis.

^^You could ask white people/black people if Obama should do *anything* and you'd probably get similar numbers.

[Edited on September 23, 2014 at 10:26 AM. Reason : .]

9/23/2014 10:25:44 AM

^^ Kind of a stupid poll. Out of all of our countries problems, I would not assert climate change to be a Top priority.

9/23/2014 11:07:34 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

9/23/2014 11:14:38 AM

Following the 300,000 or so that marched on Sunday, this demonstration occurred yesterday and was a much higher risk action. 1,000-2,000 Protesters shut down Broadway in the vicinity of Wall Street and clashed with Police when an attempt was made to get on to Wall Street itself (video included on the article page). It was billed as "Flood Wall Street":

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/nyregion/climate-change-protesters-wall-street.html?_r=0

9/23/2014 2:30:22 PM

^^^^
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByPtULzCAAAj_1B.png

9/23/2014 9:38:02 PM

Quote :

"That's cool, you can parrot what some discredited blogger said, while I'll trust a peer-reviewed scientific rebuttal. It only makes you look like an idiot. "

It's so cute that you think it was rebutted. You must live a very sad life. Wahl and Ammann does not do what you think it does. It continues to harp on trivial aspects of M&M.

Quote :

"I have no idea what this NAS report is because you have never provided it, but I'm assuming it doesn't show what you/your blogger claim it does since almost everything you say is the opposite of true."

If you can't use google, then I'm not going to do it for you.

9/23/2014 10:31:26 PM

^^Ummm, doesn't that prove my point? Find a chart showing any question asked about Obama where the white people respond positively more than the non-white people. There are non-trivial portions of each demographic which either hate him or accept whatever he says/does implicitly by virtue of his ethnicity.

9/23/2014 11:37:58 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/24/climate-change-china-rebuts-obama/

9/24/2014 10:01:46 PM

Quote :

"Wahl and Ammann does not do what you think it does. It continues to harp on trivial aspects of M&M."

Okay, well go ahead and edit the parts of this wiki that say otherwise, and all the paragraphs detailing the many ways MM05 was found to be flawed, and MBH98 to be upheld. Don't forget to provide citations, and no, blog posts by Steve McIntyre don't count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Disputed_data

9/24/2014 11:04:49 PM