"The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is > claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and > is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
-- "I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them." Bertrand Russell
On Nov 21, 6:37 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is > claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and > is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what > is going on?
Sure I can.
The writer (From investor's Business Daily) has got money invested in carbon producing comodeties, and is a little upset his shares are going the wrong way.
Lets look at his "proof" the thousands of climatologists are wrong.
Exibit A) Stolen e-mails.
Would you trust someone that uses stolen e-mail's as proof of conspiracy?
Exibit B) What P"roof"?
According to the "stolen e-mails" someone wasn't upset at the death of a climate change denier.
Exibit C) A picture on "Al Gores New Book" Illustrating what will happen if climate change continues.
According to the author, Al Gore is lying because the publicist wanted a cover picture that would illustrate what *WILL* happen if we don't stop.
And since it's impossible to have a *FUTURE* photo, of course it was edited in photoshop.
> Baron Bodissey > They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see > nothing but sea.
G Bush tried to discredit global warming, on financial grounds too. (Of course he had more than a few shares in a few major *OIL* producing firms.)
But tell me.
What will be the share price of a company on a destroyed planet?
Why do you think *THIS* depression (2009) happened?
Because the planet is being destroyed.
Look up Peek oil Peek water. Potassium shortage. Food crisis. Population explosion.
>On 11/21/09 1:37 PM, * Baron Bodissey wrote: >> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is >> claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and >> is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
Just an aside, IBD is not particularly reliable in their reporting. Unlike the Wall Street Journal which seems to do a reasonable job of keeping all their kooks on the opinion pages, IBD seems to be less careful, but we don't have to worry about that because this according to the original page <http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=513195> is alleged to be a news analysis which is found in their editorial section. We are still adding more carbon to the atmosphere than is being removed by natural or artificial means. That will affect our climate.
On Nov 21, 1:37 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is > claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and > is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what > is going on?
On this topic, IBD has a record of being, well, wrong:
IBD misrepresented Gore on hurricane frequency November 05, 2009 3:41 pm ET
An Investor's Business Daily editorial falsely claimed that Al Gore "still claims" hurricanes "are increasing in frequency and intensity" as a result of global warming and that "[w]hat has happened in the past three years is that such claims have been thoroughly debunked as the earth has cooled, possibly for decades hence." In fact, Gore has said that there is no consensus that warming is causing more frequent hurricanes, and the author of the study IBD claims has "debunked" predictions about the effect of warming on tropical cyclone (TC) intensity has stated that his findings "do not contradict the recent climate change/TC linkage literature."
Tuesday, September 9, 2008 Michelle's Boot Camps For Radicals
Election '08: Democrats' reintroduction of militant Michelle Obama in Denver was supposed to show her softer side. But it only highlighted a radical part of her resume: Public Allies.
Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service."
Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of "social change."
On Nov 21, 12:37 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is > claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and > is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
Here is the scientists' response. Seems fair enough. Obviously the scientists are not exactly impartial, but then again, neither was the hacker in all probability. Furthermore, he did not release all of the e-mails, and appears to have edited many of the ones he did release, which date back to 1996. Obviously people who already doubt global warming will say "global warming is fake LOLz" before reading into it. Interestingly, in the e-mails, there appears to be no talk of George Soros conspiratorially funding global research, nor any admittance that global warming is fake. So hopefully at least those theories will be put to rest, though I'm sure idiots do not exactly discriminate when it comes to accepting things that they desperately want to be true i.e. that there is a global warming hoax conspiracy thing.
On Nov 21, 2:52 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote: [snip]
> An Investor's Business Daily editorial falsely claimed that Al Gore > "still claims" hurricanes "are increasing in frequency and intensity" > as a result of global warming
So Algor has withdrawn _An Inconvenient Truth_? I had not heard. Socks
On Nov 21, 1:37 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is > claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and > is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what > is going on?
> Baron Bodissey > They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see > nothing but sea. > – Francis Bacon
This is Investor's Business Daily's second appearance on Talk.Origins in recent months. The first was when it claimed, in opposing Congressional health care reform proposals, that "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." This resulting in Stephen Hawking responding "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS."
> > "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is > > claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and > > is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
> -- > "I do not pretend to be able to prove that there > is no God. I equally cannot > prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god > may exist; so may the gods of > Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But > no one of these hypotheses is > more probable than any other: they lie outside the > region of even probable > knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to > consider any of them." > Bertrand Russell
Thank you for the links. The e-mail hack sure looks like a public relations disaster, even if the content of the e-mails do not imply what the deniers think they imply.
Baron Bodissey That remains to be seen, as the cat said who voided into the sugar bowl. – Jack Vance
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:37:58 -0800 (PST), Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>"The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is >claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and >is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:37:58 -0800 (PST), Baron Bodissey
<mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is > claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and > is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:37:58 -0800 (PST), Baron Bodissey
<mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote: >"The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is >claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and >is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
If you look at a graph of the average temperature for the last two thousand years, you will see anomalies, like what was called the "Little Ice Age". Meteorology and climatology are still not completely understood, but pretty close to being so. While the majority of the worlds glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking, there are some examples that run contrary to the Trend. Likewise, there are localised temperature anomalies, early snowfalls, record lows, and on and on.
On Nov 21, 1:37 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is > claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and > is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
On Nov 21, 4:05 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> moroned:
> On Nov 21, 2:52 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote: > [snip]
> > An Investor's Business Daily editorial falsely claimed that Al Gore > > "still claims" hurricanes "are increasing in frequency and intensity" > > as a result of global warming
> So Algor has withdrawn _An Inconvenient Truth_? I had not heard.
On Nov 21, 11:37 am, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is > claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and > is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
On 2009-11-22, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 11:37 am, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is >> claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and >> is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
>> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what >> is going on?
> Yes, you can't read.
Hi, Glenn.
The sentence you cut and pasted does not refer to the observed error reported.
> "If true, this is massive scientific fraud."
This refers to 61MB of data and email stolen from Hadley recently. No evidence of fraud has been found, which just goes to show that creationists make much better quote miners than climate denialists.
Next time, read the article instead of just skimming it. Even better, find the original article that has citations back to the literature.
<q> The fact is that the sun is weakening slightly. Its radiation activity is currently at a minimum, as evidenced by the small number of sunspots on its surface. According to calculations performed by a group of NASA scientists led by David Rind, which were recently published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, this reduced solar activity is the most important cause of stagnating global warming.
Latif, on the other hand, attributes the stagnation to so-called Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO). This phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean allows a larger volume of cold deep-sea water to rise to the surface at the equator. According to Latif, this has a significant cooling effect on the Earth's atmosphere.
.....
Despite their current findings, scientists agree that temperatures will continue to rise in the long term. </q>
Baron Bodissey wrote: > "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is > claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and > is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what > is going on?
Some hacker stole the personal emails of a bunch of scientists.
There isn't really much there. All it shows is that scientists are human beings. They can be stubborn, they can have their own personal agendas. But that doesn't mean the science is wrong.
What WAS disgraceful, however, was the suggestion by some of the scientists that they blackmail the editors of certain journals by refusing to submit any more papers to them, if those editors allowed papers of contrary views to be published. Boycotts are for politics, not for science.
And that's a sufficiently embarrassing revelation that it deserves a response. These scientists should pledge NEVER to try to stop any paper from being published that is good enough to pass peer review--no matter how vehemently they disagree with its conclusions.
If it's good enough to pass peer review, it's worthy of being included in a scientific debate. Don't suppress it.
-- Steven L. Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L. <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Baron Bodissey wrote: > > "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is > > claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and > > is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
> > Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what > > is going on?
> Some hacker stole the personal emails of a bunch of scientists.
> There isn't really much there. All it shows is that scientists are > human beings. They can be stubborn, they can have their own personal > agendas. But that doesn't mean the science is wrong.
> What WAS disgraceful, however, was the suggestion by some of the > scientists that they blackmail the editors of certain journals by > refusing to submit any more papers to them, if those editors allowed > papers of contrary views to be published. Boycotts are for politics, > not for science.
> And that's a sufficiently embarrassing revelation that it deserves a > response. These scientists should pledge NEVER to try to stop any paper > from being published that is good enough to pass peer review--no matter > how vehemently they disagree with its conclusions.
> If it's good enough to pass peer review, it's worthy of being included > in a scientific debate. Don't suppress it.
Peers can be idiots too. And the scientists cited are also peers, perhaps better ones than the ones that the editor happened to consult.
It is quite natural for scientists to be concerned when it seems to them that the peeer-review proces results in nonsense getting published. (and try to do something about it) Peers do not become infallible experts by grace of having been consulted by an editor.
Would you for example insist that the whole scientific community at the time acted disgracefully by threatining to stop publishing with the publisher who had accepted Velikovsky's 'Worlds in Collision'? I think not. A self-respecting scientist will try to avoid publishing in journals that he can't respect.
Ultimately the editor is responsible, and decides for himself to whom to listen,
> Steven L. <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > Baron Bodissey wrote: > > > "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is > > > claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and > > > is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
> > > Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what > > > is going on?
> > Some hacker stole the personal emails of a bunch of scientists.
> > There isn't really much there. All it shows is that scientists are > > human beings. They can be stubborn, they can have their own personal > > agendas. But that doesn't mean the science is wrong.
> > What WAS disgraceful, however, was the suggestion by some of the > > scientists that they blackmail the editors of certain journals by > > refusing to submit any more papers to them, if those editors allowed > > papers of contrary views to be published. Boycotts are for politics, > > not for science.
> > And that's a sufficiently embarrassing revelation that it deserves a > > response. These scientists should pledge NEVER to try to stop any paper > > from being published that is good enough to pass peer review--no matter > > how vehemently they disagree with its conclusions.
> > If it's good enough to pass peer review, it's worthy of being included > > in a scientific debate. Don't suppress it.
> Peers can be idiots too. > And the scientists cited are also peers, > perhaps better ones than the ones > that the editor happened to consult.
> It is quite natural for scientists to be concerned > when it seems to them that the peeer-review proces > results in nonsense getting published. > (and try to do something about it) > Peers do not become infallible experts > by grace of having been consulted by an editor.
> Would you for example insist > that the whole scientific community at the time > acted disgracefully by threatining to stop publishing > with the publisher who had accepted Velikovsky's > 'Worlds in Collision'? > I think not. A self-respecting scientist > will try to avoid publishing in journals > that he can't respect.
> Ultimately the editor is responsible, > and decides for himself to whom to listen,
Since Velikovsky never passed any science peer review process, you have no actual point.
Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote: >On Nov 22, 6:15 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: >> Steven L. <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> > Baron Bodissey wrote: >> > > "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is >> > > claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and >> > > is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
>> > > Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what >> > > is going on?
>> > Some hacker stole the personal emails of a bunch of scientists.
>> > There isn't really much there. All it shows is that scientists are >> > human beings. They can be stubborn, they can have their own personal >> > agendas. But that doesn't mean the science is wrong.
>> > What WAS disgraceful, however, was the suggestion by some of the >> > scientists that they blackmail the editors of certain journals by >> > refusing to submit any more papers to them, if those editors allowed >> > papers of contrary views to be published. Boycotts are for politics, >> > not for science.
>> > And that's a sufficiently embarrassing revelation that it deserves a >> > response. These scientists should pledge NEVER to try to stop any paper >> > from being published that is good enough to pass peer review--no matter >> > how vehemently they disagree with its conclusions.
>> > If it's good enough to pass peer review, it's worthy of being included >> > in a scientific debate. Don't suppress it.
>> Peers can be idiots too. >> And the scientists cited are also peers, >> perhaps better ones than the ones >> that the editor happened to consult.
>> It is quite natural for scientists to be concerned >> when it seems to them that the peeer-review proces >> results in nonsense getting published. >> (and try to do something about it) >> Peers do not become infallible experts >> by grace of having been consulted by an editor.
>> Would you for example insist >> that the whole scientific community at the time >> acted disgracefully by threatining to stop publishing >> with the publisher who had accepted Velikovsky's >> 'Worlds in Collision'? >> I think not. A self-respecting scientist >> will try to avoid publishing in journals >> that he can't respect.
>> Ultimately the editor is responsible, >> and decides for himself to whom to listen, >Since Velikovsky never passed any science peer review >process, you have no actual point.
Actually, he does. The point is that without a massive protest on the part of the scientific community the entire Velikovsky phenomenon might have quickly sunk without a trace.
But there was not only a protest, but pressure put on the publisher. And the Velikovskians have been riding the wave of "what were the scientists afraid of" for years.
Being publically upset because a bad article passed peer review has the same effect. Tons of rotten papers are published every year. Most sink without a trace. There are journals that keep track of how many other papers referred to any given paper. When that number is zero or in the very low single digits, you know you've got a bad one there.
> On 2009-11-22, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 11:37 am, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is > >> claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and > >> is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote: > On Nov 22, 6:15 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: > > Steven L. <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > Baron Bodissey wrote: > > > > "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is > > > > claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and > > > > is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
> > > > Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what > > > > is going on?
> > > Some hacker stole the personal emails of a bunch of scientists.
> > > There isn't really much there. All it shows is that scientists are > > > human beings. They can be stubborn, they can have their own personal > > > agendas. But that doesn't mean the science is wrong.
> > > What WAS disgraceful, however, was the suggestion by some of the > > > scientists that they blackmail the editors of certain journals by > > > refusing to submit any more papers to them, if those editors allowed > > > papers of contrary views to be published. Boycotts are for politics, > > > not for science.
> > > And that's a sufficiently embarrassing revelation that it deserves a > > > response. These scientists should pledge NEVER to try to stop any paper > > > from being published that is good enough to pass peer review--no matter > > > how vehemently they disagree with its conclusions.
> > > If it's good enough to pass peer review, it's worthy of being included > > > in a scientific debate. Don't suppress it.
> > Peers can be idiots too. > > And the scientists cited are also peers, > > perhaps better ones than the ones > > that the editor happened to consult.
> > It is quite natural for scientists to be concerned > > when it seems to them that the peeer-review proces > > results in nonsense getting published. > > (and try to do something about it) > > Peers do not become infallible experts > > by grace of having been consulted by an editor.
> > Would you for example insist > > that the whole scientific community at the time > > acted disgracefully by threatining to stop publishing > > with the publisher who had accepted Velikovsky's > > 'Worlds in Collision'? > > I think not. A self-respecting scientist > > will try to avoid publishing in journals > > that he can't respect.
> > Ultimately the editor is responsible, > > and decides for himself to whom to listen,
> Since Velikovsky never passed any science peer review > process, you have no actual point.
His book was accepted by a well known and generally respected science textbooks publishing house. (Macmillan) Macmillan dropped it after Harlow Shapley threatened to organize a boycott of Macmillan by the science community.
No doubt Macmillan had (and has) an editorial board, which advised the editor. And also no doubt the editor can (and will) ask scientists he respects for their opinion. Textbooks are a low-volume business. (as were science journals a hundred years ago)
And while we are at it: a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published a formally peer-reviewed article either, in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
On 2009-11-23, J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
<snip>
> And while we are at it: > a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published > a formally peer-reviewed article either, > in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
Do you have a cite for this? Specifically, what were the peer-review policies of Annalen der Physik, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität, Zeitschrift für Elektrochemie und angewandte physikalische Chemie, Physikalische Zeitschrift (et cetera) in the early 1900s?
<cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote: > On 2009-11-23, J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> <snip>
> > And while we are at it: > > a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published > > a formally peer-reviewed article either, > > in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
> Do you have a cite for this? Specifically, what were > the peer-review policies of Annalen der Physik, Jahrbuch > der Radioaktivität, Zeitschrift für Elektrochemie und > angewandte physikalische Chemie, Physikalische Zeitschrift > (et cetera) in the early 1900s?
Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote: > On 2009-11-23, J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> <snip>
> > And while we are at it: > > a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published > > a formally peer-reviewed article either, > > in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
> Do you have a cite for this?
It is welll known that Einstein was furious when he discovered that this abomination existed. (he had out of courtesy, submitted an article to Phys Rev) Full story in Pais for example.
> Specifically, what were > the peer-review policies of Annalen der Physik, Jahrbuch > der Radioaktivität, Zeitschrift für Elektrochemie und > angewandte physikalische Chemie, Physikalische Zeitschrift > (et cetera) in the early 1900s?
None. The editor decided what to accept. He could ask for specialist advice of course, if he deemed that necessary.
Newcomers often were recommended by a beter known collegue, whose name appeared explicitly in the header. (like for example S. N. Bose, recommended by A. Einstein)
|
