Tuesday, November 24, 2009


I love this...
I have said for years that the data set that was being used by environmentalists to "prove" man-made global warming was statistically insignificant.
I said that scientists were letting their politics and bias cloud their judgement and come up with conclusions that were not accurate.
I knew that they were trying to silence the actual scientists who can be objective from talking about the problems with the global warming data.
I never thought that they were simply making things up...
I guess you can never go to far down, down, down when it comes to the mind-set of a liberal.

So algore won a Nobel Peace Prize for making a movie that was full of lies even before this new batch of lies was reveled.

I just sit and think about all the liberals all over the Internet and specifically on this blog that made global warming their religion.
They bashed me and other conservatives as not being able to keep up with the times, for not believing in science.

The problem was that I did understand how research and data collection work and you guys did not.
I would really love to see all the blind-sheep liberals come on here and admit that man-made global warming is completely made up.
We need to stop destroying the economy of the world and especially the US economy for this made up religion.
It has been proven now...even more so than it was before.

First a few links:
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
Junk science exposed among climate-change believers

and here you still have king moron with his head in the sand, embarrassing himself and those who follow his religion..embarrass them if that is possible...
Obama: 'Step closer' to climate deal...

You have to believe that these guys always knew global warming was made-up...they really couldn't be this stupid, could they?

This has to be about destroying capitalism or taking down the big, bad dirty companies, right?
Please tell me you guys are really not this stupid?
And that you continue to be after your whole Bible has been proven made up and a lie.
Tell me you have just a little bit of dignity

Some quotes from stupid liberals:
anon- True - Earth is flat. Tobacco is not bad for health.Darwin was a moron. It was God who created everything.Liberals are stupid. They just don't get it.

JIM: Do you honestly believe that all this "stuff" you've linked here has not been reviewed by peers, by the scientific community, and simply ignored? I don't. I believe that scientists around the world have reviewed data and observations which may or may not support both "sides" of the question and come to an informed conclusion. WAY TO GO JIM...YOU CAN ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG NOW

JIM: But what most scientists agree is that the the global climate is getting warmer over time AND that at least part of the cause is anthroprogenic. WRONG

I could do this all day but you get the point..
Man do I feel so much smarter than a liberal right now..I mean, even smarter than I always do...


TerryN said...

This is fact. Believers have an agenda. Otherwise they would be happy that their predictions were wrong. They made this political.

jimspice said...

"The problem was that I did understand how research and data collection work and you guys did not."

It's quite apparent that this is not the case. This blog post alone has several glaring examples.

First, a data set cannot, in and of itself, be statistically insignificant. Statistical tests of hypotheses run against said database may prove to be so. It seems clear you use this term incorrectly.

Second, your suggesting that "It has been proven now" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. Science does not set out to prove anything. Quite the opposite. Scientists construct constructing theoretical frameworks, and then set out to disprove them. A lack of contradicting results then show support for the theory.

As far as the dustup at East Anglia, nothing from the pilloried emails casts doubt on the data itself. There is no suggestion that the actually observed data have ever been fudged.

What is open to scrutiny, though, is the mindset of few scientists. And what does it show? That they are human like the rest of us, competitive, ego driven and proud. Their apparent eagerness to silence voices in the wilderness is not flattering.

That said, the science AGW/CC is as sound as ever.

jimspice said...

East Anglia has released a statement: http://bit.ly/8l0hix

m said...

you have got to be kidding me..
Yes, a data set can in insignificant.
I can list many examples.
If you are trying to determine and predict what is going to happen with the temperature of the Earth and you only have data from 100 years out of billions then that is not very significant.
Take for example the Youth Risk Behavior Survey that school districts, cities and states conduct.
In Milwaukee if we do not have around 2400 kids take it the data is not weighted. It is not as significant because there is not a great enough sample size.

It has been proven that the entire global warming ajenda has been made up.
Even if the data was not changed and some of it thrown away and interpreted without sound scientific and statistical rigor, the predictions are wrong anyway.

They said we would have bigger and more frequent hurricanes...hum?

The temperature of the Earth has not increased in over 10 years.

Looking at how the conclusions were made on this "data" their papers would not have made it out of an intro college class...unless it was run by liberals.

jimspice said...

"Yes, a data set can in insignificant."

Statistical significance has a very specific meaning. That's why there is such widespread misunderstanding. Science has a unique vocabulary that the general population is unaware of. And when we get the media playing middle man, it ends up like a game of telephone.

TerryN said...

In one of the emails a scientist used the phrase, "hide the decline". How can a game like telephone misinterpret that phrase?

Top level paleoclimatologists discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. How does that get misinterpreted?

Jim said...

"the final nail". Hmmm. I doubt it.

TerryN said...

I agree this is not the final nail.

Way too much money at stake for those willing deceive the masses to give up without a fight. They also have the support of our current government.

Show me a link between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and increased global temperatures and I will change my view.

Ron said...

I think both sides make compelling arguments. I actually am far more concerned about the people that are willing to shit in their nest and think that is all just fine and good. It's FREEDOM by God! That is lazy thinking in my world. Obviously my world is a far different one that many people live in.
For me the global warming argument is a distraction.

jimspice said...

In one of the emails a scientist used the phrase, "hide the decline". How can a game like telephone misinterpret that phrase?

Actually, that's the instance I had in mind. It's explained at the link I provided above, but in a nutshell, one dataset has an artificial dip because it uses exptrapolated, not actual, data, so an additional corrective function needs to be applied so it conforms to a second data set that has all actual data points. "Hide the decline" is just shorthand used by the scientists, though it's perfectly understandable that it may seem hinky to the casual observer.

Top level paleoclimatologists discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. How does that get misinterpreted?

It doesn't. I think that's a fairly accurate description of what happened. However, this in no ways weakens the underlying science. It just shows the scientists involved are really annoyed with the AGW deniers. We should expect more of them.

If you'd insist that the research of the scientists involved is suspect, I'll concede the point. Let's toss that research. That leaves another 10,000 climatologists using different methods and different data, yet reaching the the same conclusions.

The Game said...

want to give Ron credit for not using the lame ass global warming thing when he talked about how people should sacrifice for the health of the planet..he always did it based on principle...

Marshall Art said...

I doubt there's 10,000 different climatologists using different methods all arriving at the same conslusion. I also doubt that they all begin with nothing and arrive anywhere but where they want to go. Throwing out wild numbers like "10,000" suggests to me a rhetorical ploy in the mold of AlGore's "consensus". In other words---BS.

I had an opponent constantly jamming peer reviewed papers at me until I researched and found how political the peer review process truly is. That was enough for me to dismiss peer review as a matter of course unless a specific review could be explained in detail. The reviewers need to be vetted thoroughly or don't waste my time.

Here's the deal from my point of view:

-Climate change (the preferred term these days) happens of its own accord regardless of man's activity.

-Man's activity certainly adds to the change in climate. The question is whether that contribution is significant enough to justify worry, and more importantly, an economically destructive change in the way we do business.

-Whether man's contribution is significant or not, environmentally friendlier ways of doing business should always be a priority.

-Environmentally friendlier ways of doing business is pretty freakin' routine these days and newer, cleaner ways of manufacturing are always being developed. This is done because there's a demand for it, as well as the fact that manufacturers have families, kids and grandkids, too.

-AlGore is a horse's ass who doesn't have the confidence of his convictions enough to debate anyone about his claims.

-AlGore is a horse's ass no matter what he does.

jimspice said...

Just updating the old "Climategate" posts I've commented on:

From East
Anglia's review
of Phil Jones'
Climatic Research Unit;

From the UK
House of Commons Science and Technology
Committee's report

From Penn
State's investigation
Michael Mann;