Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 122
  1. #1 Scientists Are Cleared of Misuse of Data 
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    A decision sure to make heads explode:

    Scientists Are Cleared of Misuse of Data

    By LESLIE KAUFMAN
    Published: February 24, 2011

    An inquiry by a federal watchdog agency found no evidence that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration manipulated climate data to buttress the evidence in support of global warming, officials said on Thursday.

    The inquiry, by the Commerce Department’s inspector general, focused on e-mail messages between climate scientists that were stolen and circulated on the Internet in late 2009 (NOAA is part of the Commerce Department). Some of the e-mails involved scientists from NOAA.

    Climate change skeptics contended that the correspondence showed that scientists were manipulating or withholding information to advance the theory that the earth is warming as a result of human activity.

    In a report dated Feb. 18 and circulated by the Obama administration on Thursday, the inspector general said, “We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data.”

    ...
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/sc...noaa.html?_r=1

    Wow! A bad day for deniers.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,899
    Time ta do the owl dance!
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    7,000
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    A decision sure to make heads explode:



    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/sc...noaa.html?_r=1

    Wow! A bad day for deniers.
    Not really....was to be expected. What sucks is the likes of you thinking a flea fart can change the direction of a hurricane...;)
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache View Post
    Not really....was to be expected. What sucks is the likes of you thinking a flea fart can change the direction of a hurricane...;)
    How many investigations must be done before you guys let it go?
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Ape Articulate_Ape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NJ, Exit Only
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    A decision sure to make heads explode:



    Wow! A bad day for deniers.

    A team of researchers and investigators from Phillip-Morris found that, contrary to previous claims, smoking is not only not bad for you, it is good for you because cigarette smoke has curative properties that can reduce the risk of heart disease and respiratory problems significantly in adults and even more so in small children. Honest injun.
    "Our president delivered his State of the Union message to Congress. That is one of the things his contract calls for -- to tell congress the condition of the country. This message, as I say, is to Congress. The rest of the people know the condition of the country, for they live in it, but Congress has no idea what is going on in America, so the president has to tell 'em." ~ Will Rogers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    How many investigations must be done before you guys let it go?
    You mean like the fact that the polar bear hysteria has been proven totally false, and yet the WWF keeps running celebrity ads pumping the GW-caused demise of polar bears as fact?

    How about the bullshit about the Maldives sinking?

    How about Naomi Klein being accidentally candid after Copenhagen and whining about the failure of the meeting to accomplish it's true goal: "social justice" and payment of 800 billion dollars to "developing nations which have been devastated by the United States and other industrial nations."

    Don't snort sunshine up your nose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member FBIGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    If I told you I'd have to kill you
    Posts
    290
    Hmm. A bunch of liars backed up another bunch of liars and the delusional hold up this as some kind of proof.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member malloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Queen Creek, AZ
    Posts
    2,147
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    A decision sure to make heads explode:



    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/sc...noaa.html?_r=1

    Wow! A bad day for deniers.
    A VERY bad day for literacy. You didn't even read the whole article did you?

    Some choice parts of the article you ignored.

    But Mr. Inhofe said the report was far from a clean bill of health for the agency and that contrary to its executive summary, showed that the scientists “engaged in data manipulation.”

    The report was not a review of the climate data itself.
    Here's the related part from the OIG's (PDF) actual report, emphasis mine.

    Even though Dr. Lubchenco expressed confidence in the scientific research that forms the basis for the GHCN-M dataset, she and her staff discussed retroactively ensuring that the data meets certain standards, but she did not recall the feasibility or disposition of such an effort. However, according to NOAA, the algorithms, which NCDC utilizes to adjust monthly temperature time series data in the GHCNM dataset, are extensively evaluated in peer-reviewed scientific literature.
    So she discussed manipulating the data with her colleges but then conveniently doesn't remember if she actually manipulated data or not? Since they merely discussed manipulating the data in the emails, according to her, and the OIG doesn't have the initial data, no evidence can be found, obviously. Hilarity ensues as she defends her position by expressing confidence in algorithms? The output of the algorithms is directly related to the input, which if manipulated, means a perfectly good algorithm spits out B.S.

    Next we have another supposedly scientific organization hiding it's documents.

    However, the CRU emails referenced a specific IPCC-related FOIA request received and responded to by NOAA in June 2007 that led to our further examination of how those FOIA requests were handled. We determined that, at the time, NOAA did not conduct a proper search for responsive documents as required under FOIA, and, as a result, did not have a sufficient basis to inform the requesters that it had no responsive documents.
    Why would a scientific organization that is not a paid stooge of climate cult wacko's need to hide it's documents?

    However, the first portion of the summary makes this entire report laughable and questionable.

    Dr. Lubchenco's December 2, 2009, testimony statement. In preparation for the United Nations Climate Change Conference in mid-December 2009, the House Select Committee held a hearing on December 2,2009, to discuss the Administration's view on the state of climate science. Both Dr. John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director ofthe Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Dr. Lubchenco testified at the hearing. Dr. Lubchenco, a marine ecologist and environmental scientist, told us that her statement from the hearing was based on, and reflects, her general confidence in the "fundamental science" behind the human-induced global warming theory, which she characterized as "robust." Specifically, Dr. Lubchenco told us that the CRU emails do nothing to undermine the conclusions drawn by climate scientists with regard to global warming because the emails involved just one ofthe many centers across the globe that analyzes climate information. According to Dr. Lubchenco, even if one were to discount the CRU's scientific assertions, other groups that analyze climate information have reached the same conclusion, and, as such, the fundamental science remains very strong.
    Dr. Lubchenco exonerated Dr. Lubchenco? Wait, what?

    Now I have some serious question that you should answer for yourself. The Office of the Inspector General resides under the Department of Commerce which is run by the President of the United States. The OIG's office is a cabinet department and as such it does not serve The Congress, The People or the scientific community, it serves it's boss. The President of the United States is a radical leftist who wants environmental regulation in order to grab great power over private production for the executive office. In such a case, would an agency subordinate to the will of the President go against the President's own agenda?

    If there is a consensus, why does the U.S. continue to spend billions researching what we already know to be true? Why do so many climate scientists oppose global warming? By definition a consensus is an agreement among the whole of a body. Why do climatologists say there is a consensus when clearly what they have is not by definition a consensus?
    Last edited by malloc; 02-25-2011 at 02:24 PM.
    "In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
    —Thomas Paine, Common Sense
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    7,000
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    How many investigations must be done before you guys let it go?
    Exactly! That's what I've been saying! When are you guys going to figure out that man can't change ANYTHING GLOBALLY?

    Let me know what you find out ;)
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    You mean like the fact that the polar bear hysteria has been proven totally false, and yet the WWF keeps running celebrity ads pumping the GW-caused demise of polar bears as fact?

    How about the bullshit about the Maldives sinking?

    How about Naomi Klein being accidentally candid after Copenhagen and whining about the failure of the meeting to accomplish it's true goal: "social justice" and payment of 800 billion dollars to "developing nations which have been devastated by the United States and other industrial nations."

    Don't snort sunshine up your nose.
    I see you're still over-focused on the vagaries of popular media when you should be focusing on science.

    How about the bullshit about the Maldives sinking?
    How about it? No scientist believes the Maldives are sinking. That would be idiotic. There are, however, scientists who feel that the Maldives are drowning, albeit slowly. Do you have any information which contradicts claims of rising sea levels in the Maldives?
    Last edited by The Night Owl; 02-25-2011 at 02:58 PM.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •