AGW Scientists, The new “Flat Earth” Society?

by Edmund Jenks | November 28, 2009 at 12:41 pm
405 views | 23 Recommendations | 9 comments

Videos

CLIMATEGATE FOXNEWS Is Saving Our Buts On This One_wmv

see larger video

sourced by Edmund Jenks

CLIMATEGATE FOXNEWS Is Saving Our Buts On This One_wmv

Photos

AGW Scientists, The new “Flat Earth” Society? | Photo 02

AGW Scientists, The new “Flat Earth” Society? | Photo 02

see larger image

uploaded by Edmund Jenks

UPDATED - 7:45pm PT ---

Anthropogenic Global Warming Scientists, the new “Flat Earth” society?

Last week, a hacker revealed that a group of powerful, government-backed European scientists are controlling the results of developing global warming theory, and preventing clear debate or the development of opposing scientific evidence to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). It appears that certain more objective scientists run the risk --- if they present solid evidence contrary to the popular global warming theories --- realize they run the risk of being made objects of ridicule and marginalized in efforts to gain monies from Governments for research projects designed to discover facts ... that lead to the truth.

So on one side we have the “flat earther” powerful old-world scientists … and on the other side we have the “world is round” scientific-method based researchers who are continuing to discover facts … and thereby, the truth.

Powerful forces within the scientific community have been purposely shaping information in order to bolster a concept that, at best, is speculative and seems designed to lead to one human activity that these people think is perfectly suitable for their point-of-view ... a one-world Government, based upon a socialist model of CONTROL. This CONTROL is initially focusing on calling us to “Save the Earth From Destruction”, since a fear-based program is the only way to get free people to forsake their rights and their freedoms in the concept of climate stabilization and saving humanity from imminent destruction.

This excerpted and edited National Review Online –

Krauthammer's Take
On the announcement that President Obama will attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen
NRO Staff, Friday, November 27, 2009


Comments From Wednesday's Fox News All-Star Panel:

The global warming science is not junk science, but it's speculative. It's based on incomplete data. It's based on computer models that rest on assumptions — that, in turn, rest on an understanding of how the globe’s climate controls itself — that [are] extremely incomplete.

So its projections are speculative. But it pretends that, of course, that it is the hardest of all sciences and anybody who is skeptical is a denier — using a term used normally about the Holocaust, which is of course an event that actually happened as opposed to projections in global warming, which are speculative science.

So what you see in the [leaked global-warming] emails are people that are on somewhat shaky grounds. It is not as if there is no science at all in this, but there is contradictory evidence, such as the flattening of the rise in temperatures, which they cannot explain.

And their response is either suppression or manipulation or, even worse, the delegitimizing of — the personal attacks on — skeptics in an attempt to write them out of the journals, to get them fired, and all kinds of nasty stuff. … It puts a lot of their research in question.

I think what's interesting about Obama is he is going to be at the U.N. [conference in Copenhagen] to announce the [new] policy about climate change on the basis of — nothing. He is going to be proposing what the House has passed — that he knows is not going to pass in the Senate.

And we are actually a constitutional democracy where the president can't announce a policy unilaterally. It actually has to pass the two houses of the Congress, and our allies abroad know that, and they’re going to look at this announcement he is going to make and think it … extremely strange.
Reference Here>>

The United States has established no formal policy, yet our President, if allowed to do so, will gladly sign away our sovereignty in order to achieve the socialist political objectives of control found in the Copenhagen accords.

Further, scientists and Government forces who choose to use or believe in their conclusions that the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a fact, are no better than previous generations of leaders in their insistence that the Earth is flat. These people should be known from this moment forward as ... "Flat-Earthers"!

From The Free Dictionary:

1) flat-earth·er (flatûrther)
n.

One who stubbornly adheres to outmoded or discredited ideas: "If you don't accept the ideas derived from Adam Smith ... then you are [considered] a flat-earther" (James Fallows).

[From the long-discredited belief that the earth is flat.]

2) flat-earther
n.
Informal - a person who does not accept or is out of touch with the realities of modern life.

UPDATE - From Atlanta Journal Constitution, ajc blog:

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

The focus on the story has turned from the emails the scientists exchanged to the computer code their center was using to produce its data sets, which have been an integral part of the IPCC’s reports. Declan McCullagh at CBS News reports some of the findings so far:

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: “I feel for this guy. He’s obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources.”

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU’s Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” and “APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION.” Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: “Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend – so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!”

At Pajamas Media, which has been producing some of the most in-depth coverage of this story, Charlie Martin examines the code further and concludes:

To put this in the context of what else we know from the CRU data dump:

1. They didn’t want to release their data or code, and they particularly weren’t interested in releasing any intermediate steps that would help someone else

2. They clearly have some history of massaging the data — hell, practically water-boarding the data — to get it to fit their other results. Results they can no longer even replicate on their own systems.

3. They had successfully managed to restrict peer review to what we might call the “RealClimate clique” — the small group of true believers they knew could be trusted to say the right things.

As a result, it looks like they found themselves trapped. They had the big research organizations, the big grants — and when they found themselves challenged, they discovered they’d built their conclusions on fine beach sand.

But the tide was coming in.

Even if the CRU crew are only guilty of promising more than they could deliver, that’s still a hugely important turn of events in the climate-change debate — and reason enough to put the policy debate on pause while this new information is sorted out.

Finally, on a more humorous note, check out this video created for Minnesotans for Global Warming by the folks at JibJab.com.

LA Conservative Examiner>>

recommend Add a comment
2
Babel-Fish

I don't really care about the total argument, what I have always said on this very issue is, I want fresh air and no pollution. It's time for humans to clean up their damn mess and take care of this planet we live on.

If Obama is on the same track and mindset I am completely on his side and any one wants to vote against cleaning up this planet they are voting for filthy air and a polluted world and for many more species to be extinct. Whats the damn sense in that.

I also want to see the world free of its reliance on oil, because this will stop the damn oil wars and perhaps this planet will see more peace.

To me that really make sense.     


0
Roy C

Different pollution problems need different pollution solutions. Going after carbon when carbon per se is not the problem defeats your attempt to clean up the same environment.

Obama doesn't know any science, is not open-minded, does not yield on errors. In short, he is the most liberal president we have ever had.

If he succeeds in destroying the economic basis of our nation, we won't have any capacity to clean up anything. The poorer the country, the dirtier the country in the world today.


0
Victory V.

Agreed the poorer the country the least able it is to actually install clean air edicts.  Otherwise why is the UN proposing helping third world countries clean up their air?  Duh.  We need science to help us use oil, coal and other energy resources in a clean fashion not just throw out the baby with the bath water and stop it all in it's tracks. Whose idea was all this anyway?

0
Roy C

No, I am more educated than he is. Law school, I am sorry. It ain't merde. "Teaches you to think"? About what?

Law sucks as a basis for deciding economic and scientific issues. He knows nothing of them.

By the way, yes, Bush didn't know much about them, either. If you recall, he became quite unpopular with independents such as myself, but not quite as fast as Obama has lost my independent friends.

How much science do you know, RNG? Statistics? Experimental design? History of the chief controversies of science? Even if climate prediction is an experimental science or not?


0
Roy C

You don't know what a narcissist is then. A narcissist presupposes his being right. Sees the world from only his window. Doesn't get other points of view. It has nothing to do with your level of education.

On what basis did you see him as so "educated"? He is a kind of intellectual middle-brow that does quite well in TV land and the press with their very superficial take on what is what.



0
Roy C

I am capable of changing my mind. I used to believe in anthropogenic global warming. At one time, I believed you didn't need vitamin supplements. At one time, I believed Freud and Nietzsche to be the right on target.

His history IS NOT public record. All those records are sealed. What is also sealed is the possibility that the only B H Obama from Indonesia from Obama's hometown was, in fact, our dear Prez, on an Indonesian passport.

So, you are wrong, RNG. None of it is public record.


0
Roy C

What were his grades at Occidental and Columbia? How come he need some Arab sheik to get him into Harvard?

As I said, though, he is not educated in the very stuff he needs to know to be a president. Law School is one enormous sophistry.

Who knows more, for example, the prosecuting attorney or the crime scene investigator? Who knows more about how to judge global warming research? A trained biologist or a lawyer?

My father was a lawyer. I used to admire them. The older I got, the more I realized that they knew the law well if you were lucky. One of the best lawyers I know was a mining engineer before becoming a lawyer.

He is a trial lawyer and he used that science background really well, handing a defeat to a DA that cried at her first defeat in thirty trials.

0
Roy C

You said he was educated. I say that Ben Stein is educated. We elected a lawyer and community organizer. I didn't say he wasn't intelligent. I am talking about educated.

I got very high scores on those tests myself. A lot of what educated me, though, was living in Europe and reading stuff I had neglected in my formal education. And, living life for a long time in a place which was the place of that history.

I will tell you that there are few people as educated as some of my ESL students were in Italy, and I have a way to go to catch up, but what we need from Obama is a lot on emotional intelligence and a mind that is educated enough to know doubt and not go for the orthodox position of the left or the right.

What great stuff he did put out in the campaign, such as on-line posting of bills, open negotiations on major bills with all parties present, line vetoes of budget items, no earmarks: all he has not done, along with that DADT that he could change in a heartbeat.

1
Barbara McPherson

These revelations are disheartening.  If they reveal suppression and fudging of results, the toadies(don't call them scientists) should be drummed out of their labs.  The Scientific Method, which every kid learns in school, is the basis of science.  You get the results you get, not the ones you want.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

Babel-Fish
First Flagged at 1:27 PM, Nov 28, 2009 by Babel-Fish
These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

Recommendations (23)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from