The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 12    Average: 4.1/5]
55 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 2762
Rating: 4.1
Category: Science
Date: 01/08/14 08:58 AM

55 Responses to Richard Alley Discusses The Weather

  1. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 8:58 am
    Link: Richard Alley Discusses The Weather - CNN interviews one of the giants in the field of climate science regarding the recent cold.
  2. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36688 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 9:16 am

    1: It`s colder in Chicago than it is on Mars.

    2: I saved for retirement. Wall Street stole it all.

    3: That guy strikes me as a creepy nerd who masturbates during Disney movies.
  3. Profile photo of stumpen
    stumpen Male 18-29
    71 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 9:29 am
    1 and Europe is freakishly warm

    2 money well spent when you listen to capitalists

    3 those are some sexy animations sometimes
  4. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 9:34 am
    @ Gerry:

    *sigh* Okay, I`ll play. After all, your responses are more germane than 90% of what`s likely to be posted in this thread in the next hour.

    1: It`s so hot in Australia that they`ve had to add new colors to the color temperature charts. (That`s not a joke, it`s a fact.) That said, per Richard Alley, neither the extreme cold in Chicago nor the extreme heat in Australia tells us much about global warming.

    2: As a person who works in investments (investment software, to be exact), I can tell you that anyone who`s invested in index mutual funds, the single best way to invest for retirement, and hung in there is doing fantastic. The S&P 500 is at a record high.

    3: Richard Alley may appear a little odd, but that man thinks more great thoughts while brushing his teeth than the rest of us will think in a lifetime.
  5. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6961 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 9:37 am
    OK, the guy may be a scientist who has spent decades studying this, but if Donald Trump disagrees ...

  6. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36688 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 10:01 am

    Squrlz - Don`t talk to me. I haven`t forgiven you for eating my Pepperidge Farm cookies. DON`T DENY IT!
  7. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 10:07 am
    @ Gerry: Who, *me*?!



    I didn`t do it, nobody saw me do it, you can`t prove anything!
  8. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7564 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 10:08 am
    Given he actually understands the subject I give him credence. We have had here- and by here I mean the town where I live, more extreme weather events in the last 5 years than in the previous 25. In 2000 we had such severe flooding they built a flood defence system.. this year that expensive system cannot cope and the flooding is as bad as in 2000- add to that the ice a couple of years ago- a lOT of snow which is unusual here as we have a microclimate. This may NOT be climate change- but as I have said before- why should we not clean up our act, this is the only planet we have and gambling with our future is just LUNACY..
  9. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 10:28 am
    Lowering pollution is good. Al gore sitting on top of a pile of money while preaching about it though tells me he`s full of s**t and the fact that they had to change the term Global warming to climate change tells me a lot of these scientists really don`t know exactly what`s going on.
  10. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 10:35 am
    "Lowering pollution is good. Al gore sitting on top of a pile of money while preaching about it though tells me he`s full of s**t and the fact that they had to change the term Global warming to climate change tells me a lot of these scientists really don`t know exactly what`s going on."

    Al Gore had money long before he started talking about climate change. And, they stopped calling it "global warming" because of all the dufuses saying it`s cold out so global warming must not be true.
  11. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 10:38 am
    My retirement accounts are doing great! Maybe Gerry doesn`t really know what they are worth right now (or whoever picked the investments didn`t know what they were doing or chose all the crap speculative stuff).
  12. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 10:43 am
    @ McGovern: "The fact that they had to change the term Global warming to climate change tells me a lot of these scientists really don`t know exactly what`s going on."

    Oh good grief. Not this again.

    *Global warming* and *climate change* are two separate things; always have been, always will be. Global warming refers to the energy imbalance caused by solar input (which has remained relatively stable) vs. radiative heat loss (which has measurably decreased as greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have increased). Climate change, on the other paw, refers to changes in long-term local weather patterns as a result of global warming. As the models have long predicted, the vast majority of the Earth`s climates are showing warming, while a small minority are showing cooling.

    The idea that climate scientists have abandoned the term *global warming* is a fiction oft-repeated on denier websites and the Rush Limbaugh program.
  13. Profile photo of DromEd
    DromEd Male 40-49
    1928 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 10:50 am
    "That is very, very (word chopped off).. We scientists don`t like to say undeniable, we like to say very high confidence."


    WTF!? Any scientist worth his salt wants to be able say "X is a fact and I have undeniable demonstrable proof to back it up."

    Consensus again...the language of politicians.
  14. Profile photo of jinxjinx34
    jinxjinx34 Male 30-39
    183 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 10:58 am
    @McGovern1981- Maybe you should stop using people like Al Gore as a model for truth. To ignore or dismiss evidence provided by the actual experts in the field because other people are profiting is extremely ignorant. The name change was likely an attempt to more clarify climatologists position on the situation and is not an indication of uncertainty of the facts.
  15. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 10:59 am
    @ DromEd: From a previous comment of yours on the topic, I get the impression you aren`t quite grasping (or may have forgotten) the distinction between a simple fact (2 + 2 = 4, to use your example from a previous post) and a scientific theory. A scientific theory, to use the definition of the National Academy of Sciences, is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

    Some of the more significant scientific theories include evolution theory, cell theory, atomic theory, and AGW theory. Even gravity was first described as a theory (by Newton), which is why Dr. Alley reached for his pen when he was trying to explain (in three TV seconds or less) why scientists avoid the words "absolutely" and "undeniably" when talking about natural phenomena.
  16. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7564 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 11:01 am
    No Drom-ed they don`t, they come up with a hypothesis, they use that to make predictions- then the more correct the predictions the better the hypothesis. Then they become confident.. it takes a HELL of a lot for a scientist to be certain.. they might want to be certain... but they can be confident that today is Wednesday.. at the moment.
  17. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32823 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 11:09 am
    @madduck: But the USA has had the -lowest- bad weather for 2 years in a row. Global Weather is filled with -natural- variations.

    5:00 His "solutions" are asinine.
    #1 Deserts are far from those needing power.
    #2 Wind and Solar cost 4X to 8X that of Nuclear. Minimum. Or even Gas.

    "Poor people in hot places" are ALWAYS going to be the "worst off" ffs! Reality! Hundreds of millions live in `volcanic zones` too, shall we `save` all of them as well? How exactly?

    To imagine that humans can alter the Earth`s natural cycles is pure -hubris- ...
  18. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 11:14 am
    Al Gore had money long before he started talking about climate change. And, they stopped calling it "global warming" because of all the dufuses saying it`s cold out so global warming must not be true.

    So if he actually cared why wouldn`t he take the mountains of money he made preaching gloabal warming and use it to fight it.
  19. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7564 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 11:20 am
    No 5cats- to be able to show that we chuck tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere daily is not hubris. To assume we can do what the hell we like without consequences is hubris... to assume we have the RIGHT to do as we please is hubris.. to assume it is someone elses problem is hubris..
  20. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 11:33 am
    @ McGovern: Let me see if I`m understanding you. Your position is, "I can`t stand a non-scientist who`s talked about AGW, therefore AGW is fake"?

    Have I got that right? =O.o=
  21. Profile photo of drawman61
    drawman61 Male 50-59
    7740 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 11:34 am
    "So if he actually cared why wouldn`t he take the mountains of money he made preaching gloabal warming and use it to fight it."

    McG, these people don`t give a sh** about you or me. They do what they do to make their money mountains even higher then rely on gullible souls like you to keep them in their job by waving your little flag once every four years.
  22. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 11:51 am
    @ McGovern: Let me see if I`m understanding you. Your position is, "I can`t stand a non-scientist who`s talked about AGW, therefore AGW is fake"?

    Have I got that right? =O.o=


    You missed the part where I said "Lowering pollution is good" but I also think these climate scientist are like my weather man and never get anything right. I also recall this crap since I was kid and recall we should all be pretty much dead by now according to them then. Yet the solution accepted by them is to let those with money buy carbon cookies so they can pollute and I`m sure those politicians and scientist promoting this would never abuse such a nice big source of money.......
  23. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 12:35 pm
    @ McGovern: You`re holding two contrary views at the same time, which makes a productive dialogue difficult, if not impossible. Please choose one of the following:

    (A) Climate scientists have no idea what they`re talking about; OR

    (B) One of the suggested approaches to mitigating anthropogenic global warming--carbon tax credits--is likely to be abused by the corrupt.

    If you believe A, there`s no need to talk about B. If you want to have a serious discussion about B, I can only assume it`s because you don`t believe A.
  24. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 1:09 pm
    If you believe A, there`s no need to talk about B

    Not really isn`t B being practiced by many that would make it relevant no matter what I believe about A. I`m sure pollution has a negative impact on the planet but we`ve been churning out tons of it since the industrial revolution and the world hasn`t spontaneously combusted yet we`ve actually been getting cleaner. Tell me if your massive income depended on telling everyone they needed to live in the woods off of twigs and berries and enact laws that give you more money if you emit carbon or the world is doomed would you ever acknowledge somethings might be getting overstated?
  25. Profile photo of SethDog
    SethDog Male 18-29
    768 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 1:15 pm
    Hmmm who would you rather believe this guy and other climate scientists who study there whole lives about this stuff? Or people like Donald Trump and other business tycoons who just want to deny it to so that they don`t have to spend millions of there precious money making environmentally friendly alternatives to there factories.
  26. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 1:20 pm
    @ McGovern: From the body of comments you`ve made here, apparently the crux of your belief is that AGW is a hoax perpetrated by ... the powers that be... to make money and control people.

    That`s a pretty common belief around here, certainly among those who spend a lot of time reading right-wing blogs. That said, I`m not keen on discussing conspiracy theories. I`m a lot more interested in discussing the actual work of climate scientists such as Dr. Alley. I`m saying that as neutrally as possible; no slight intended.
  27. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32823 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 1:21 pm
    The exact same "Polar Vortex" happened in 1974, fyi.

    Global Cooling Was Blamed!
    Time magazine, quoting "scientists" of course!

    Q: Was the 1974 Polar Vortex ALSO caused by AGW? Honestly now.
  28. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32823 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 1:25 pm
    Here`s some rational thinking:

    Richard Lindzen article

    He`s a bona-fied Climate Scientist at MIT... 200 papers & etc.
  29. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 1:27 pm
    Hmmm who would you rather believe this guy and other climate scientists who study there whole lives about this stuff? Or people like Donald Trump and other business tycoons who just want to deny it to so that they don`t have to spend millions of there precious money making environmentally friendly alternatives to there factories.

    Problem is the way its setup now they just move it to China where they don`t follow the rules screwing us both ways.....
  30. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 1:29 pm
    From the body of comments you`ve made here, apparently the crux of your belief is that AGW is a hoax perpetrated by ... the powers that be... to make money and control people.

    Nah I just think it`s overblown and it`s solution is broken.
  31. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 1:54 pm
    @ McGovern: Well, thanks for the clarification. I agree that the media, in trying to get the attention of the public, have often sensationalized the topic. But that, after all, is pop culture, not science.

    Was there anything in this video of Dr. Alley, one of the leading scientists in climatology, that struck you as overblown?

    As far as responses to global warming go, there`s more than one solution: there`s a virtual smorgasboard of possibilities to choose from--not one of which will do us any good if we choose to ignore the advice of the vast majority of the scientists and do nothing.
  32. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4855 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 2:01 pm
    @5Cats,
    "To imagine that humans can alter the Earth`s natural cycles is pure -hubris- ..."

    I have to disagree. In fact, I think that to deny that we are slowly poisoning the planet in multiple ways by the pollutants we pump into our air, water and soil is a clear case of denial. Not completely sure I believe the relative costs you quoted, either. Development of wind and solar are probably quite expensive but, I suspect (not going to research it), that, once in place, these things will be more on par with the others. Don`t know that they would really reduce pollution much, though, since manufacturing the components is, I`m sure, just as polluting as everything else we do. As far as deserts being far from people who need power...so are oil wells and coal mines. There`s no power plant particularly close to my house but they figured out a way to get the electricity here for my lights and, somehow, the natural gas gets here, too, for my oven.
  33. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 2:07 pm
    Imagine all the jobs that could be created if we ran wires out to deserts full of wind turbines and solar panels. Let`s use the vast parts of America no one wants to live on. I know its more complicated than that but you know what I mean.
  34. Profile photo of johneveryman
    johneveryman Male 70 & Over
    8 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 2:25 pm
    Thanks again 5cats,Ollie and McGovern! What is the opinion of the overwhelming amount of climate scientists and those in the field with PHDs compared to right wing pundits and educated people such as yourself? Nothing that`s what! Everyone with a brain can see that there is a global conspiracy going with these scientists, that and these people with years of study in the field are far too stupid to take into account details like what you guys constantly post! Keep fighting the good fight!
  35. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 2:44 pm
    @ Johneveryman: Actually, I`ll defend McGovern here. As opposed to the views of some of the others you`ve mentioned, McGovern`s position is reasonable: He believes AGW is real, but overblown, and thinks carbon credits are a bad idea.

    I can have an interesting and productive discussion with someone holding those views any day.
  36. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 2:57 pm
    Was there anything in this video of Dr. Alley, one of the leading scientists in climatology, that struck you as overblown?

    Oh he was perfectly reasonable I`m talking about in general.

    Imagine all the jobs that could be created if we ran wires out to deserts full of wind turbines and solar panels. Let`s use the vast parts of America no one wants to live on. I know its more complicated than that but you know what I mean.

    MAKE DETROIT A WIND FARM!!
  37. Profile photo of DromEd
    DromEd Male 40-49
    1928 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 3:08 pm
    Imagine all the jobs that never got created when that whole pipeline deal got s--- canned back a few years ago.
  38. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 3:12 pm
    "MAKE DETROIT A WIND FARM!"

    LOL! I`m onboard with that one. ~high paws McGovern~
  39. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32823 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 6:05 pm
    IPCC made 117 `predictions` and 114 of them were wrong... just said that on CBC, which is highly liberal...

    @Squrlz4: Dr. Alley said a lot of `overblown` things! He just fired them out like a machine-gun.
    He said some reasonable things too, so all-in-all he`s not too bad...

    @broizfam: Thanks for being polite! I appreciate it.
    Once in place? No. That`s not how you measure costs.
    Wind Farms OR Solar have huge start-up costs, high maintanence, don`t last as long as predicted AND WORST OFF ALL require conventional power generation to back them up.
    3 strikes = out!
    Add the environmental damage they do & it`s really bad.

    @lauriloo: Every `green job` kills 2.4 `regular` jobs. It`s been demonstrated throughout Europe. Government `handouts` don`t create jobs, fyi...
  40. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 6:41 pm
    @ 5Cats: I`m not sure what that statistic of yours means exactly or where it comes from, but it seems highly suspect. IPCC predictions have been, on the whole, very good. If I were using a teacher`s letter grades, I`d give the IPCC a B+. The predictions that have really stunk--and would receive an F in any class I taught--are the predictions of the AGW skeptics. (Well, Lindzen might`ve squeaked by with a D.)

    The GIF below shows the data. The observed global surface temperature trend since 1990 is in black. The four main IPCC predictions are the four colored lines; skeptic predictions are the dashed lines.

  41. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 10:47 pm
    How can global warming be real if it`s so damn cold out?
    Typical lying-sack-of-$#!+ liberal straw-man argument. I have NEVER heard a serious global warming skeptic say that or anything like that. It`s the global warming alarmists who are ALWAYS touting weather events as proof of their so-called "scientific theory" (that doesn`t even meet the minimum standards to qualify as a real scientific theory.)

    And why do all their remedies involve them bossing us around and taking our stuff?
  42. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14625 posts
    January 8, 2014 at 11:44 pm
    So, in summary, God did it?
  43. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    January 9, 2014 at 5:56 am
    Imagine all the jobs that never got created when that whole pipeline deal got s--- canned back a few years ago.

    Along with all the oil tanker accidents that have happened on railways and roads. Ya that was really stupid it`s still gotta be moved guys!
  44. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4855 posts
    January 9, 2014 at 9:43 am
    @5Cats,
    Startups are ALWAYS expensive. Maintenance and life expectancy of technologies under development typically improve GREATLY with time, knowledge, and improved techniques so these are not reasons to avoid such development. You`re wrong about how those costs are measured since initial development is ALWAYS costly. Those costs are then amortized over years. You don`t fail to develop due to initial costs unless those costs are prohibitive under a current financial situation. You may decide, however, not to develop if you can see that the ongoing costs will continue to be too high. As far as being polite? That`s easy...you`ve never been less than a gentleman in your responses to me!
  45. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4855 posts
    January 9, 2014 at 9:49 am
    @OldOllie,
    Stop the knee-jerk anti-liberal crap, already. It makes you sound stupid and you`re clearly not. There are rabid global warming alarmists and rabid global warming deniers. Somewhere in the middle, we need to recognize that we`re poisoning the only world we have to live in and start doing some sensible things to stem, and possibly turn, that tide. Let`s not wait until we`re gasping for breath before we finally admit that, yes, we`ve been a little stupid and should have done better.
  46. Profile photo of DinVen
    DinVen Male 30-39
    390 posts
    January 9, 2014 at 2:21 pm
    The anti science crowd presence is strong with this thread.

    Informative clip, thanks for sharing. Usually people get their climate info from talk radio hosts, pundits, politicians and other non experts. Tragic.
  47. Profile photo of Phosphoreign
    Phosphoreign Male 30-39
    308 posts
    January 9, 2014 at 3:39 pm
    First, she starts by making people who are asking how global warming could be real if its so cold, then goes on to say, "but let`s admit, it`s a fair question"... no that`s not biased.
    @Broizfam: "some sensible things to stem..." I can`t disagree... what I can say is, what we are doing now is not sensible... its PROFITABLE for the friends of power, while doing great economic damage to others. Also consider, scientists are no more moral people than any else... not above lying about their data (it was proven that many DID) in order to keep their funding going...
  48. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 9, 2014 at 4:29 pm
    @ Phosphoreign: "Scientists are no more moral people than any else... not above lying about their data (it was proven that many DID)."

    If you are alluding to what was commonly called "Climategate," you`ve got the facts wrong. It was NEVER proven that any climate scientist lied about his data, let alone that "many" did. In fact, not one, not two, not five, but EIGHT separate investigations found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

    This canard that it was proven that the scientists faked data is one of the biggest "zombie stories" in climate science: an error of fact that has been killed repeatedly but just won`t die.
  49. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    January 9, 2014 at 11:07 pm
    It was NEVER proven that any climate scientist lied about his data...
    Then perhaps you can enlighten us as to how "hide the decline" can mean anything other than "falsify the data."
  50. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 10, 2014 at 2:02 am
    @ Ollie: "Then perhaps you can enlighten us as to how `hide the decline` can mean anything other than `falsify the data.`"

    I`d be happy to.

    The phrase "hide the decline," much ballyhooed by Fox News as a smoking gun that, they claimed, showed the scientists were lying, comes from an email by climatologist Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to Penn State University climatologist Michael Mann and some of Mann`s colleagues. The full sentence from which the phrase was lifted reads as follows:

    "I`ve just completed Mike`s *Nature* trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 to Keith`s to hide the decline."

    (Cont`d)
  51. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 10, 2014 at 2:02 am
    (Cont`d)

    The "decline" that is being referred to by Jones is not a decline in temperatures. It`s a decline in the correlation between temperature and tree ring growth that has occurred since about 1960. Prior to 1960, tree rings serve as an excellent proxy for temperature records; post 1960, for reasons that are not well understood but that probably have to do with acid rain and other forms of pollution, they do not.

    The problem is so well-known among climatologists it`s usually referred to in shorthand fashion as "the (tree-ring) divergence problem."

    What Jones is stating in his email is that he used the same technique that Mann had employed in a *Nature* article of using tree-ring proxy data up to the recent past and then extended the trendline using modern temperature records. Tree-ring data measurements later than 1960, he`s saying, have been dropped from the chart because of the divergence problem.*

    (Cont`d)
  52. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 10, 2014 at 2:02 am
    (Cont`d)

    Clearly, the idea that Jones was talking about "hiding a decline" in TEMPERATURES since 1961 and 1981 is absurd: accurate, modern-day temperature records abound and there`s no way anyone`s going to hide them, regardless of what direction they`re headed in.

    Bear in mind that this simply isn`t my personal interpretation of Jones` email. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, eight separate investigations** have looked into the "Climategate" emails and found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

    Hope this helps.

    (Cont`d)
  53. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 10, 2014 at 4:01 am
    (Cont`d)

    ENDNOTES

    * Since the correlation between temperature and tree rings breaks down after 1960, you might be wondering how tree rings can be trusted as proxy data for much earlier periods. To verify the accuracy of tree rings as a proxy, dendroclimatologists have spent decades comparing them to other proxies such as lake and ocean sediments, ice cores, coral growth, pollen grains, and water isotopes. Those comparisons have confirmed that prior to 1960, the tree ring data are reliable.

    ** The eight investigations that exonerated the climatologists are:
    (1) House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK);
    (2) Independent Climate Change Review (UK);
    (3) International Science Assessment Panel (UK);
    (4) Penn State University 1st Investigative Panel (US);
    (5) Penn State University 2nd Investigative Panel (US);
    (6) United States EPA (US);
    (7) Department of Commerce (US); and
    (8) National Science Foundation (US).
  54. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4855 posts
    January 11, 2014 at 8:41 am
    @Squrlz,
    Brilliant response! Also, thank you for the education and for showing us how to do it in a non-judgemental fashion.
  55. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 12, 2014 at 7:13 pm
    @ Broizfam: Thanks--although you may be the only one still reading the thread at this point.

    I have to say, it`s rather difficult to discuss AGW with people on IAB who are not particularly knowledgeable--and it`s not because of what they don`t know. It`s because of the misinformation that they *think* they know that they have picked up from either far-right anti-AGW blogs or Fox News. Usually 90% of my energies--and 100% of the other person`s patience--is spent on dispelling untruths.

    The sorry consequence of this is I seldom get a chance to give the other person basic, honest information and resources with which he could start doing his own investigation of the issue, from either a pro-AGW position or an anti-AGW position.

Leave a Reply