So wait, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal owned by Rupert "ClusterFOX" Murdoch, and the Washington Times owned by the loonie Moonies, are reliable unbiased sources?
Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as
A comparable paper to the Daily Mail would be the Enquirer. The Daily Mail publishes hyperbolic reports. It is often sued, and loses. This particular article takes Professor Jones comments out of context. The title itself is intentionally deceptive. You are better off going to primary sources or experts in the field who can interpret primary sources better than you instead of, well, the Daily Mail for instance. Here is the interview with Jones from the BBC that your article was distorting. Is there something in the interview you would like to discuss?
Um 3 of the 4 links I posted came from the uk dude. Hardly right wing or big oil. :? :roll:
The fact of the matter is there is no conclusive evidence that "global warming" OOOOPS I mean Climate Change :roll: is anything other than NATURAL TEMPUTURE VARIATIONS which actually existed before man kind and have very little to to do with man made fossil fuels.
dude ... you make it so easy ... it's absurd ... i randomly click one of your links - find the source your "author" cites to prove his op-ed ... and bam ...
when are you gonna learn!?? ... if i hadn't already discredited all your other sources - it might be a worthwhile venture to try and reach out to you ... but you aren't doing any work ... all you're doing is soaking up propaganda under the guise of some global conspiracy ...
what is most absurd is your assertion that environmentalists have taken over gov'ts ... do you not see the world around you!?? ... the planet is fucking going to shits man ... we are losing biodiversity by the second and you think environmentalists have taken over ...
seriously - EDUCATE yourself on both sides of the issue ... constantly googling "climate change is a fraud" will only get you the stuff you want to read ... all you are continuing to show on this thread is your lack of understanding on the subject ...
More good news that will make some mad for some reason...
February 21, 2010 - Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
Um 3 of the 4 links I posted came from the uk dude. Hardly right wing or big oil. :? :roll:
The fact of the matter is there is no conclusive evidence that "global warming" OOOOPS I mean Climate Change :roll: is anything other than NATURAL TEMPUTURE VARIATIONS which actually existed before man kind and have very little to to do with man made fossil fuels.
do you not see the world around you!?? ... the planet is fucking going to shits man ... we are losing biodiversity by the second ..
I am looking around and I don't see anything wrong. Everything in Western PA is perfect, the seasons come and go and sometimes it's cold and sometimes it's hot. Trees grow and the wind blows, I see deer and ground hogs and they appear happy and healthy. I go to Ocean City, MD every year and have been for about 15 years and the ocean is right where it has always been but I keep hear that the sea level is rising. Except it's not rising. Like I said before...it's ok, Mother Earth is ok, Chill baby!!
This part - Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
You seem to have a pattern for not reading past the headlines, of your own articles no less. Read further and you will learn that "[they] did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate".
The withdraw concerns a refining of the estimate of the sea level rise, not a refute of the premise.
This part - Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
You seem to have a pattern for not reading past the headlines, of your own articles no less. Read further and you will learn that "[they] did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate".
The withdraw concerns a refining of the estimate of the sea level rise, not a refute of the premise.
Well.....shut my mouth. :silent: After I re-read the article more carefully I see that these "scientists" are merely incompetent.
But I say that it is good news when the impending doom of our planet from our actions is not reported as a certainty. I odn't believe that people can change the climate one way or the other.
1. There are many studies that support rising waterlevels apart from the one being retracted
2. This conservative study is now retracted, meaning that the otherwise consensus of higher levels is actually strengthened.
3. Science consists of many people doing independent studies, whose results are considered. For example, if there are 20 studies where 12 conclude with one thing, a further 6 are inconclusive and 2 have differing conclusions, then the sound scientific explanation to the public is in favour of the 12 in this case. That 2 differs may indicate further studies are needed, or that their method may be off. This case was a slightly differing study, challenged on methodical grounds, being retracted, meaning it went from differing back to inconclusive.
4. This is how science works, and is the best we got to determine what goes on. If a majority of studies conclude with one thing, that is the sound position from which to decide policy. Even if the conclusion is not unanimous (which it EXTREMELY rarely is in any field of science), that's the right thing to go by.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
Unfortunately....yes
A comparable paper to the Daily Mail would be the Enquirer. The Daily Mail publishes hyperbolic reports. It is often sued, and loses. This particular article takes Professor Jones comments out of context. The title itself is intentionally deceptive. You are better off going to primary sources or experts in the field who can interpret primary sources better than you instead of, well, the Daily Mail for instance. Here is the interview with Jones from the BBC that your article was distorting. Is there something in the interview you would like to discuss?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
dude ... you make it so easy ... it's absurd ... i randomly click one of your links - find the source your "author" cites to prove his op-ed ... and bam ...
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/person ... php?id=903
when are you gonna learn!?? ... if i hadn't already discredited all your other sources - it might be a worthwhile venture to try and reach out to you ... but you aren't doing any work ... all you're doing is soaking up propaganda under the guise of some global conspiracy ...
what is most absurd is your assertion that environmentalists have taken over gov'ts ... do you not see the world around you!?? ... the planet is fucking going to shits man ... we are losing biodiversity by the second and you think environmentalists have taken over ...
seriously - EDUCATE yourself on both sides of the issue ... constantly googling "climate change is a fraud" will only get you the stuff you want to read ... all you are continuing to show on this thread is your lack of understanding on the subject ...
February 21, 2010 - Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ct-siddall
I am looking around and I don't see anything wrong. Everything in Western PA is perfect, the seasons come and go and sometimes it's cold and sometimes it's hot. Trees grow and the wind blows, I see deer and ground hogs and they appear happy and healthy. I go to Ocean City, MD every year and have been for about 15 years and the ocean is right where it has always been but I keep hear that the sea level is rising. Except it's not rising. Like I said before...it's ok, Mother Earth is ok, Chill baby!!
What about this article did you find to be good news?
This part - Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
You seem to have a pattern for not reading past the headlines, of your own articles no less. Read further and you will learn that "[they] did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate".
The withdraw concerns a refining of the estimate of the sea level rise, not a refute of the premise.
Well.....shut my mouth. :silent: After I re-read the article more carefully I see that these "scientists" are merely incompetent.
But I say that it is good news when the impending doom of our planet from our actions is not reported as a certainty. I odn't believe that people can change the climate one way or the other.
1. There are many studies that support rising waterlevels apart from the one being retracted
2. This conservative study is now retracted, meaning that the otherwise consensus of higher levels is actually strengthened.
3. Science consists of many people doing independent studies, whose results are considered. For example, if there are 20 studies where 12 conclude with one thing, a further 6 are inconclusive and 2 have differing conclusions, then the sound scientific explanation to the public is in favour of the 12 in this case. That 2 differs may indicate further studies are needed, or that their method may be off. This case was a slightly differing study, challenged on methodical grounds, being retracted, meaning it went from differing back to inconclusive.
4. This is how science works, and is the best we got to determine what goes on. If a majority of studies conclude with one thing, that is the sound position from which to decide policy. Even if the conclusion is not unanimous (which it EXTREMELY rarely is in any field of science), that's the right thing to go by.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965