National Geographic - Chicken Little Syndrome

[The Night Owl]

LINKY DINK

 

Blame "mankind" and then demand laws to hand over control of our economies to moonbats.  

The report you are citing is the 4th in a series. The IPCC did not start with the premise that mankind is causing global warming.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Except your red line was drawn using the bullshit Hockeystick and its since revised temp data set.

Revisions to the temperature data set affected only US temperature data and the revision was extremely small. The hockey stick is still in play.

Of course, if you are the type of person who bases your opinion of scientific matters on work which has not been published in peer reviewed science journals, I can see why you might think that the hockey stick is broken.

Deflection and obfuscation.

1. The hockey stick provided the same output regardless of the data set used...even random numbers

2. The hockey stick has not been peer reviewed because they would not release the program.

3. You're claming NASA's temp readings are invalid because they aren't peer-reviewed. That takes brass.

In 2006, Hansen accused the Bush Administration of attempting to censor him. The issue stemmed from an email sent by a 23-year old NASA public affairs intern. It warned Hansen over repeated violations of NASA's official press policy, which requires the agency be notified prior to interviews. Hansen claimed he was being "silenced," despite delivering over 1,400 interviews in recent years, including 15 the very month he made the claim.  While he admits to violating the NASA press policy, Hansen states he had a "constitutional right" to grant interviews.  Hansen then began a barrage of public appearances on TV, radio and in lecture halls decrying the politicization of climate science.

Turns out he was right. Science was being politicized. By him.

A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute'  funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other political action groups.

Certainly Soros has a right to spend his own money. But NASA officials have a responsibility to accurate, unbiased, nonpartisan science. For Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious -- it's a clear conflict of interest. 

But the issues don't stop here.  Hansen received an earlier $250,000 grant from the Heinz Foundation, an organization run by Kerry's wife, which he followed by publicly endorsing Kerry.  Hansen also acted as a paid consultant to Gore during the making of his global-warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," and even personally promoted the film during an NYC event.

After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make public the method he uses to generate "official"  temperature records from the actual readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source code, containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for others, sometimes by several degrees.  Many areas with weak or no rising temperature trends are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend.  A full audit of the Hansen code is currently underway, but it seems clear that Hansen has more explaining to do.

George Deutsch, the NASA intern who resigned over the censorship fallout, said he was initially warned about Hansen when starting the job, "People said ... you gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates.'" 

http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+James+Hansen+and+the+Politicization+of+Science/article9061.htm

You're rapidly drifting from disingenuous schmuck to lying propagandist.

[The Night Owl]

Deflection and obfuscation.

1. The hockey stick provided the same output regardless of the data set used...even random numbers

2. The hockey stick has not been peer reviewed because they would not release the program.

3. You're claming NASA's temp readings are invalid because they aren't peer-reviewed. That takes brass.

Sensational claims by Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, which form the basis of your argument against the hockey stick, have recently been discredited in a peer reviewed study put out by the American Meterological Society...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10

Wake me up when McIntyre and McKitrick get their work on climate change published in a respected scientific journal.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Rely?

'Cuz it was McIntyre that got NASA to revise its temp data.

[Rebel]

Rely?

'Cuz it was McIntyre that got NASA to revise its temp data.

I think it's pretty clear that he's not going to believe anyone that contends a point that is in opposition to his own. Hell, he thinks consensus=truth. 

[The Night Owl]

Rely?

'Cuz it was McIntyre that got NASA to revise its temp data.

Right... McIntyre got NASA to revise some local temperature data which had no perceptible effect on the global mean. What he has not done is break the hockey stick.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Rely?

'Cuz it was McIntyre that got NASA to revise its temp data.

Right... McIntyre got NASA to revise some local temperature data which had no perceptible effect on the global mean. What he has not done is break the hockey stick.

Oh, so the demagogues only used bad data when it came to the US...but everything else is stills cary bad.

Got it.

[The Night Owl]

I think it's pretty clear that he's not going to believe anyone that contends a point that is in opposition to his own. Hell, he thinks consensus=truth. 

I fully acknowledge the theory of anthropogenic climate change could be totally wrong. I just try to base my opinion on climate change on the best information out there and the best information out there comes from peer reviewed scientific study.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I think it's pretty clear that he's not going to believe anyone that contends a point that is in opposition to his own. Hell, he thinks consensus=truth. 

I fully acknowledge the theory of anthropogenic climate change could be totally wrong.

If that's the case perhaps you would care to comment...http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=1752.0

[Chris_]

Deflection and obfuscation.

1. The hockey stick provided the same output regardless of the data set used...even random numbers

2. The hockey stick has not been peer reviewed because they would not release the program.

3. You're claming NASA's temp readings are invalid because they aren't peer-reviewed. That takes brass.

Sensational claims by Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, which form the basis of your argument against the hockey stick, have recently been discredited in a peer reviewed study put out by the American Meterological Society...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10

Wake me up when McIntyre and McKitrick get their work on climate change published in a respected scientific journal.

...and of course the American Meterological Society won't gain a dime from gw study.   

[Atomic Lib Smasher]

Why the **** is this thread 4 pages???

Anyways, speaking of Chicken Little syndrome, the Sci-Fi channel is running "The Day After". Not the one with the faggot from Ride of the Rumprangers, but the 1983 movie anti-nuke propaganda. I watched a bit of it.... it was bullshit, so I said **** it and switched it to Dirty Jobs.

[Chris_]

Why the **** is this thread 4 pages???

Anyways, speaking of Chicken Little syndrome, the Sci-Fi channel is running "The Day After". Not the one with the faggot from Ride of the Rumprangers, but the 1983 movie anti-nuke propaganda. I watched a bit of it.... it was bullshit, so I said **** it and switched it to Dirty Jobs.

It was an interesting movie at an interesting time.  Not a good time, just an interesting time.  It had quite an impact and shouldn't be tossed as easily as you are.

Yes, it was liberal claptrap, but at the time we really did think that The Bomb could fall any day. This was before the Berlin Wall fell and Reagan removed that fear.

[Ptarmigan]

Speaking of Global Warming, it would likely benefit ptarmigans, a setback for the invading rabbits.

http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=1081.msg15429#msg15429