House of Fusion
Search over 2,500 ColdFusion resources here
  
Home of the ColdFusion Community

Mailing Lists
Home /  Groups /  ColdFusion Community (CF-Community)

The Inside Story on Climate Scientists Under Siege

  << Previous Post |  RSS |  Sort Oldest First |  Sort Latest First |  Subscribe to this Group Next >> 
From:
** Private **
02/20/12 10:26 A
I like d Mr Blankley and will miss his wit.
** Private **
02/20/12 08:34 P
> I like d Mr Blankley and will miss his wit.
** Private **
02/20/12 08:38 P
On 2/20/2012 8:38 PM, Sam wrote:
** Private **
02/20/12 08:47 P
>  and hope and change.
** Private **
02/20/12 10:11 P
that's a problem all right.
** Private **
02/21/12 08:22 A
GE and Solyndra come to mind.
** Private **
02/21/12 09:33 A
More on the original document leak:
** Private **
02/21/12 02:48 P
Wow, dude ruined his career for nothing.
** Private **
02/21/12 02:59 P
Yep, he fucked up.
** Private **
02/21/12 02:59 P
You're like in nursery school aren't you?
** Private **
02/21/12 11:40 A
Top  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 10:26 AM

From: http://motherjones.com/environment/2012/02/climate-scientist-michael-mann-video "It is almost possible to dismiss Michael Mann's account of a vast conspiracy by the fossil fuel industry to harrass scientists and befuddle the public. His story of that campaign, and his own journey from naive computer geek to battle-hardened climate ninja, seems overwrought, maybe even paranoid. But now comes the unauthorized release of documents showing how a libertarian think tank, the Heartland Institute, which has in the past been supported by Exxon, spent millions on lavish conferences attacking scientists<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/heartland-institute-fraud-leak-climate>; and concocting projects to counter science teaching for kindergarteners." ...

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 11:07 AM

Science leads to the truth, and the truth is the enemy of those who's wealth is based on lies. On 20 February 2012 11:26, Camer ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 02:30 PM

So what happened to the country that believed the sky was falling: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidies_.html That could have been us. . > > Science leads to the truth, and the truth is the enemy of those who's > wealth is based on lies.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 11:08 AM

Wow, I'm kind of shocked to see that you read Mother-Jones.Isn't that the most rabid of all left wing publications? It looks more like Mann's peers discredited him and Heatland is just making sure people know it. 3373.txt: Ray Bradley: " Furthermore, the model output is very much determined by the time series of forcing that is selected, and the model sensitivity which essentially scales the range.  Mike only likes these because they seem to match his idea of what went on in the last millennium, whereas he would savage them if they did not.  Also--& I'm sure you agree--the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published.  I don't want to be associated with that 2000 year "reconstruction". " This refers to a 2003 paper "Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia" by Mann and Jones, that shows 'hockey stick' temperature graphs and was used by the IPCC in its 2007 report 0497.txt: Jones to Mann in 1999: " Keith didn't mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you're on very dodgy ground with this long-term decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale. What the real world has done over the last 6000 years and what it ought to have done given our understandding of Milankovic forcing are two very different things. " 4382.txt: Tom Wigley to Mann: " I would be careful about using other, independent paleo reconstruction work as supporting the MBH reconstructions. I am attaching my version of a comparison of the bulk of these other reconstructions. Although these all show the hockey stick shape, the differences between them prior to 1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers' side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all. " 4133.txt: David Rind (NASA GISS): " what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is  that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got. " 5027.txt: " I find it somewhat ironic that it should be replaced with the latest (Mann and Jones) series that contains the same three series plus a mixture of other far more dubious (not to say bad ) series " 2023.txt: " I also believe some of the series that make up the Chinese record are dubious or obscure , but the same is true of other records Mann and Jones have used ... There are problems (and limitations ) with ALL series used. " 0207.txt: Ray Bradley expresses his doubts about his own paper with Mann: " But there are real questions to be asked of the paleo reconstruction...things fall apart in recent decades... This makes criticisms of the "antis" difficult to respond to (they have not yet risen to this level of sophistication, but they are "on the scent"). Furthermore, it may be that Mann et al simply don't have the long-term trend right, due to underestimation of low frequency info. Whether we have the 1000 year trend right is far less certain (& one reason why I hedge my bets on whether there were any periods in Medieval times that might have been "warm", to the irritation of my co-authors!). " . On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Camer > > From: > http://motherjones.com/environment/2012/02/climate-scientist-michael-mann-video

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 12:16 PM

> Wow, I'm kind of shocked to see that you read Mother-Jones.Isn't that > the most rabid of all left wing publications? > I read lots of things. I find it helps me avoid an ideologically narrow and rigid world view. You should try it sometime. -Cameron ...

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 12:23 PM

I read this list to point me to the extreme views of the left and the right, usually from the same people. I guess it's important to be able to recognize them rather than repeat them as fact. You should try it sometime. . On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Camer > > I read lots of things. I find it helps me avoid an ideologically narrow > and rigid world view. You should try it sometime. > > -Cameron

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 12:30 PM

> I read this list to point me to the extreme views of the left and the > right, usually from the same people. I guess it's important to be able > to recognize them rather than repeat them as fact. You should try it > sometime. > Weak. -Cameron ...

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 08:17 PM

I don't think anyone on this list is extreme politically; some are just more locked and therefore closed mined than others. The late, and very very great Tony Blankley had a good way to describe it.  He said that those in the center were simply less willing to believe their philosophy would always work. On Feb 20, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 08:34 PM

I like d Mr Blankley and will miss his wit. I say that ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 08:38 PM

> I like d Mr Blankley and will miss his wit. > > I say that I wasn't finished... I say I read about extreme views on this list since it was here I learned that people believe the world is 5,000 years old and that people don't believe evolution is true. I also learn that people still believe in global warming and hope and change. All things I never learn about in the real world. .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 08:47 PM

On 2/20/2012 8:38 PM, Sam wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- A bit older than 6,000.  Learn it right.   and that > people don't believe evolution is true. Damn, dirty apes.   I also learn that people still > believe in global warming There really is no indisputable evidence for either way, so this is a toss-up.   and hope and change. Pffft.  Aren't most of the current candidates still on about this, only under a different name? "I am not Obama.  That guy sicks.  Believe in me instead.  I can return us to greatness!" I would love to be able to run for president, not with the intention of winning, but to flat out speak my mind on topics without all of the BS verbal dancing that politicians do, just to see how people would react.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 09:03 PM

On Feb 20, 2012, at 5:47 PM, PT <cftodd@gmail.com> wrote: > Pffft.  Aren't most of the current candidates still on about this, only > under a different name? "I am not Obama.  That guy sicks.  Believe in me > instead.  I can return us to greatness!" I believe that our government is constrained no matter who is elected because: 1.) for reasons that can't be released publicly, our foreign policy is locked. 2.) for reasons that can't be released publicly, our economic policy is locked. 3.) for political reasons social issues have fairly well defined boundaries. So it basically doesn't matter who is elected.  All the arguments are just ways for people to make money. This the elections are simply about this group of companies making money or that group of companies making money. It all nets out to zero.  Or -1 depending on your outlook.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 10:11 PM

>  and hope and change. > > Pffft.  Aren't most of the current candidates still on about this, only > under a different name? "I am not Obama.  That guy sicks.  Believe in me > instead.  I can return us to greatness!" I knew people elected a guy with no experience and no plans, I'm talking about the people that think hope and change is still coming and he just needs more time. > I would love to be able to run for president, not with the intention of > winning, but to flat out speak my mind on topics without all of the BS > verbal dancing that politicians do, just to see how people would react. I have to say that's what I like about Gingrich. He doesn't have a chance, but having him in the debates just gives me hope that the candidates will actually talk about policy rather than attacks. Of course, now we know that's a bad idea.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/21/2012 12:29 AM

Ah.  Yeah, Obama had his chance and blew it.  No more hope and change. I think he has hit his stride. On 2/20/2012 10:11 PM, Sam wrote: > > I knew people elected a guy with no experience and no plans, I'm > talking about the people that think hope and change is still coming > and he just needs more time.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/21/2012 07:49 AM

Once your country is run by the Corporations with the most money, then there can be no hope and change. Once Corporations are treated like people (psychopathic people, but people all the same) who can influence politicians then you can't have hope and change. From what I'm reading, past US Presidents saw the danger in this as far back as Lincoln and warned against it. On 20 February 2012 23:11, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: > > I knew people elected a guy with no experience and no plans, I'm > talking about the people that think hope and change is still coming > and he just needs more time. > >

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/21/2012 09:33 AM

GE and Solyndra come to mind. I think it's going to be hard to run against a man expected to spend $1 billion to run. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/21/2012 09:43 AM

There's a thread going on right now with all the batshit crazy lefties trolling about. Funniest shit I read in the longest time. Good comedy to see how the insane think. . >  also learn that people still > believe in global warming and hope and change. All things I never > learn about in the real world.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/21/2012 10:39 AM

and you wonder why people don't want to talk to you. I think Erika had the right idea. I know *i* need a vacation from you. Oh and in that statistics thread...Gruss was just paraphrasing the stuff you pasted. Seeya. Wouldn't want to be ya. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/21/2012 10:55 AM

"Once your country is run by the Corporations with the most money, then there can be no hope and change." Once? We're already there.  Have been for a while. Anyway Vivec, been playing Skyrim? J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/21/2012 02:48 PM

More on the original document leak: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73099.html Climate researcher admits leaking Heartland Institute documents By: Darren Samuelsohn February 21, 2012 12:07 AM EST Oakland-based climate researcher Peter Gleick confirmed Monday that he?s the source of last week?s leak of documents purporting to reveal the budget and strategy of the Heartland Institute. Writing on his Huffington Post blog, Gleick, the president and co-founder of the Pacific Institute, said he received one document anonymously at the start of the year but then, in an attempt to confirm its accuracy, made a ?serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics? by contacting the Chicago-based libertarian group using someone else?s name. The Heartland Institute replied to him with more materials and "confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget," Gleick wrote, referring to its purported plans to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars from donors like the Charles G. Koch Foundation and the creation of new school curriculum questioning climate change science. "I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public," Gleick wrote. "I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication." Gleick?s blog post appears to end one of the mysteries from last week's leak with his acknowledgment that he also forwarded the documents to journalists and other experts who work on climate issues. The left-leaning DeSmogBlog and Climate Progress, which is affiliated with the Center for American Progress, were among the sites to first publish the materials Feb. 14. "I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so," Gleick wrote. "I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed." "My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts ? often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated ? to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved," he wrote. "Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected." Heartland Institute spokesman Jim Lakely said late Monday that he?s aware of Gleick?s blog post but did not have an immediate comment. The group sent letters over the weekend to several blogs and news outlets ? including POLITICO ? demanding that they delete all references to the documents. Heartland says one of the documents is a fake and that it's investigating the others, and it's alleging that the documents were stolen or otherwise taken from the group improperly. It also said it's contacted the FBI and police and is considering pursuing civil and criminal charges against the person who originally obtained the materials. Two sources in California ? longtime Democratic operative Chris Lehane and Corey Goodman, a member of the Pacific Institute board of directors ? confirmed to POLITICO that Gleick authored the Huffington Post blog confessing to be the source of the leak. "This is very Peter-esque if he discovers he did something wrong to get right out there," said Goodman, the managing director and co-founder of venBio, a health care investment firm. "There's a lot of people in these issues who don't do things like that. ?If he discovers he made a mistake, he'd want to be the first one to say so. Give him some credit for that,? Goodman added. Gleick has often battled with the Heartland Institute over climate science. The internationally-known water expert and member of the National Academy of Sciences since 2006, Gleick last summer was tapped by the Center for American Progress to participate in a pre-buttal conference call before Heartland hosted its sixth annual International Conference on Climate Change in Washington. Andy Revkin, author of The New York Times' Dot Earth blog, wrote Monday that Gleick's disclosure will have consequences for the climate scientist. "One way or another, Gleick?s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others," Revkin wrote. "That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I?m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family)." This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 12:03 a.m. on

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/21/2012 02:59 PM

Yep, he fucked up. Science and scientists need only concern themselves with the honest pursuit of discovery. There is no need to stoop to the level of the voluntarily ignorant by engaging in secretive document leaking and similar type behavior. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/21/2012 03:28 PM

You mean like Oppenheimer, or several other American and immigrant scientists who were grilled by the HUAC. I can see why Gleick initially leaked the docs anonymously. You know such things as fear for your job etc. That said, he had the honesty and integrity enough to admit leaking the docs . Other scientists, like Richard Muller who was a long time critic of AGM had the integrity to admit his data followed the commonly accepted model. How many of the right wing who trumpet the "GREAT GLOBAL WARMING CONSPIRACY" and its associated bullship would do the same? The one semi prominent denier I personally know probably would not. The limbaughs, becks etc would not. In fact I cannot think of one who would. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/21/2012 03:34 PM

The leak has no value, it doesn't mean anything. Or did I miss something. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/21/2012 11:40 AM

You're like in nursery school aren't you? . > > and you wonder why people don't want to talk to you. I think Erika had > the right idea. I know *i* need a vacation from you. Oh and in that > statistics thread...Gruss was just paraphrasing the stuff you pasted. > Seeya. Wouldn't want to be ya.


<< Previous Thread Today's Threads Next Thread >>

Search cf-community

October 25, 2014

<<   <   Today   >   >>
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
       1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31   

Designer, Developer and mobile workflow conference