Wells Hall Off-topic BoardPolitics, Religion, and Social Issues. This board is your pulpit to preach to the masses (like the Wells Hall preacher) about everything from politics to religion. Please show RESPECT to your fellow Spartans.
Branson: ‘I believe it’s the future’ and can replace fossil fuel in 30 years
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Tired of skyrocketing jet fuel prices, Virgin Atlantic Airways boss Richard Branson said on Wednesday he plans to turn his back on hydrocarbons and use plant waste to power his fleet.“We are looking for alternative fuel sources. We are going to start building cellulosic ethanol plants (to make) fuel that is derived from the waste product of the plant,” he told Reuters in an interview in the oil-rich United Arab Emirates.
“It is 100 percent environmentally friendly and I believe it’s the future of fuel, and over the next 20 or 30 years I think it actually will replace the conventional fuel that you get out of the ground.”
__________________
"we're going to win this game and it's going to be one of the greatest games in the history of Michigan State."
Hot Air: tOfficial Ginormo Wells Hall Global Warming Thread
An AP review of the climategate emails shows:
scientists not always convinced of global warming
not sharing key data with other researchers
the use of "very generous interpretations" (but not completely falsified data)
doubts from scientists about the quality of raw data
colluding to keep data away from those who sought it under freedom of information acts
deletion of data
cheering the death of a global warming skeptic
colluding retribution to journals that publish skeptic data
potential manipulation of data.
While no out and out fabrication of data was discovered in the emails..it certainly shows unethical practices, and manipulation to prevent open science. It certainly doesn't instill much confidence in these scientists.
The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change
Quote:
The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Quote:
Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"
Quote:
Some e-mails expressed doubts about the quality of individual temperature records or why models and data didn't quite match. Part of this is the normal give-and-take of research, but skeptics challenged how reliable certain data was.
Quote:
One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming.
Quote:
The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method.
Quote:
"I believe none of us should submit to these 'requests,'" declared the university's Keith Briffa. The center's chief, Phil Jones, wrote: "Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them."
Quote:
When one skeptic kept filing FOI requests, Jones, who didn't return AP requests for comment, told another scientist, Michael Mann: "You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting FOI requests for all e-mails Keith (Briffa) and Tim (Osborn) have written."
Quote:
When the journal, Climate Research, published a skeptical study, Penn State scientist Mann discussed retribution this way: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
One of the several scandalous revelations of the Climategate e-mails is that this claim of consensus is a lie. Never mind the skeptics: It turns out many of the scientists in the CRU inner circle had doubts and disagreements about their data, methodology and conclusions, and often bickered with one another about defects in their project.
One main issue of the whole “hockey stick” exercise is something called the “medieval warm period” and “little ice age” (MWP and LIA in climate-lingo). It has long been thought that the earth could have been as warm or warmer than it is now about 1,000 years ago. That’s when Greenland got its name, for example; there was a lot less ice then than there has been in recent centuries.
Both the MWP and LIA are crucial to the debate: If the earth warmed and then cooled naturally over the last millennium, then recent warming may not be unnatural or predominantly caused by man at all.
There have been rumors for years that climate campaigners wanted to make the MWP “go away,” and 10 years ago three CRU affiliated scientists (Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes) obliged with the release of the hockeystick graph, which claimed without doubt that the 1990s was the hottest decade in the last 1,000 years. The MWP vanished completely in their temperature reconstruction, which was based on the ingenious use of “proxies” (since there were no thermometers 1,000 years ago) such as tree rings, ice-core samples, coral reefs and lake-bed sediments.
Critics and the National Academy of Sciences ripped apart the hockey stick — but the e-mails now show us disagreements among the very scientists who produced it in the first place. Edward Cook of Columbia University, some of whose raw data Mann, Bradley and Hughes used in the hockey stick, wrote a CRU colleague: “Of course he [Bradley] and other members of the MBH [Mann, Bradley, Hughes] camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective.” In a separate note, Cook wrote: “Can I just say that I am not in the MBH camp — if that be characterized by an unshakable ‘belief’ one way or the other, regarding the absolute magnitude of the global MWP.”
Even Bradley, one of the hockey-stick co-authors, admitted his reservations: “All of our attempts, so far, to estimate hemisphere-scale temperatures for the period around 1,000 years ago are based on far fewer data than any of us would like. None of the data sets used so far has anything like the geographical distribution that experience with recent centuries indicates we need, and no one has yet found a convincing way of validating the lower-frequency components of them against independent data . . .
Therefore, I accept that everything we are doing is preliminary, and should be treated with considerable caution.”
As serious journalists and uninfected scientists have an opportunity to review these emails, and we all have the opportunity to observe the reactions of these frauds, it becomes more and more damning, and a sickening exposure of the ersatz scholarship of these hooligans.
What the warmists and their pathetic apologists here and elsewhere fail to understand is the science itself; that science is an endeavor and a disciplined method of inquiry of truth. The content is the result of those endeavors. What these people have been doing both over the years and in reaction to their exposure as frauds is not science, it is an insult to science.
Mr. Bradley's quote above is not consistent with the actions of ManBearPig algore, the IPCC, or the Obama Administration.
No the advancement of theorys does have many twists and turns and this is perffectly normal including professional back biting etc.
This does not invalidate the theory however.
__________________
"I'll stake my River City band against any other band in Iowa"
"What band?"
"I always think there's a band, son"
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
No the advancement of theorys does have many twists and turns and this is perffectly normal including professional back biting etc.
This does not invalidate the theory however.
You're correct, this doesn't invalidate the theory but it discredits all of their research.
The only way to strengthen a theory is to welcome research that attempts to disprove it. This is how science has been done for hundreds of years. Propose a theory. Others attempt to disprove the theory. After numerous attempts to disprove it, if it still holds its own it becomes accepted.
What we have seen with the global warming research is that almost every study is done to further support their theory, not disprove it. When research is completed that disproves their theory they don't dispute the merit of the research, they simply conceal the research and discredit the authors.
__________________ Another Official Mark Dantonio Bandwagon Member
You're correct, this doesn't invalidate the theory but it discredits all of their research.
The only way to strengthen a theory is to welcome research that attempts to disprove it. This is how science has been done for hundreds of years. Propose a theory. Others attempt to disprove the theory. After numerous attempts to disprove it, if it still holds its own it becomes accepted.
What we have seen with the global warming research is that almost every study is done to further support their theory, not disprove it. When research is completed that disproves their theory they don't dispute the merit of the research, they simply conceal the research and discredit the authors.
It has nothing to do with their research....all you are reading is the typical conversations that currently go on via e-mail in business all over the world...
The theory is the theory and it stands as it stands. Opinions about it and other ideas are just subjective ideas and counter theories which need to be tested.
__________________
"I'll stake my River City band against any other band in Iowa"
"What band?"
"I always think there's a band, son"
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It has nothing to do with their research....all you are reading is the typical conversations that currently go on via e-mail in business all over the world...
The theory is the theory and it stands as it stands. Opinions about it and other ideas are just subjective ideas and counter theories which need to be tested.
Which one of these findings by the AP don't apply to the research?
* not sharing key data with other researchers * the use of "very generous interpretations" (but not completely falsified data) * doubts from scientists about the quality of raw data * colluding to keep data away from those who sought it under freedom of information acts * deletion of data * potential manipulation of data.
__________________ Another Official Mark Dantonio Bandwagon Member
This is one of my favorite passages from the batch of emails that got released because one of the AGW crowd's favorite things to do is attack skeptical articles because of where they appeared.
In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes - washingtonpost.com
In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.
This is one of my favorite passages from the batch of emails that got released because one of the AGW crowd's favorite things to do is attack skeptical articles because of where they appeared.
In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes - washingtonpost.com
In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.
If Pfizer was able to suppress negative research the way the IPCC has, Lipitor would be safer to consume then water. Neurontin would be sold over the counter, and Xanax would be found in energy drinks.
__________________ Another Official Mark Dantonio Bandwagon Member
I'm beginning to think the cons in this thread, particularly danb and his religion of GCC evidence denial, were members of the OJ criminal jury.
Conspire - To plan together secretly to commit a wrongful act or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
Conspiracy - a secret plan or agreement to carry out an illegal or harmful act, esp with political motivation
In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.
__________________ Another Official Mark Dantonio Bandwagon Member
These guys would've felt right at home in the old tobacco industry.
OMG. This is so breathtakingly stupid on so many levels I don't know where to begin.
You should start here, danb. Maybe you might learn something interesting. Parts of the denier community are the old tobacco industry. They are literally the same people. The denier playbook is copied right from the old tobacco playbook.
Nobel Laureate Al Gore should debate former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and all those who don't believe man is responsible for global warming.
So said MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe Friday in an appearance on "Countdown."
This was in response to substitute anchor Lawrence O'Donnell bringing up Palin's answer to conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham's question concerning the former Governor debating Gore about climate change.
What followed was rather comical if you understand how many people from around the world have challenged the Global Warmingist-in-Chief to a head-to-head without him once accepting (video embedded below the fold courtesy our friend Story Balloon, relevant section at 3:50):
__________________ Another Official Mark Dantonio Bandwagon Member
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.
As for Mann and Jones' apparent effort to punish the journal Climate Research, the paper that ignited his indignation is a 2003 study that turned out to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute. Eventually half the editorial board of the journal quit in protest.
Half the editorial board, including von-Storch who is very sympathetic to the contrarians, knew that 1. the paper was garbage, and 2. the editor had broken the rules to put it in. They resigned because the editor Mann and Jones are mad about was doing something very wrong.
Scientific misconduct was what Mann and Jones were fighting.
Link.
Half the editorial board, including von-Storch who is very sympathetic to the contrarians, knew that 1. the paper was garbage, and 2. the editor had broken the rules to put it in. They resigned because the editor Mann and Jones are mad about was doing something very wrong.
Scientific misconduct was what Mann and Jones were fighting.
So the millions spent by Big Oil against AGW are bad but the Billions spent by the Federal Government for AGW are good?
You're correct, this doesn't invalidate the theory but it discredits all of their research.
The only way to strengthen a theory is to welcome research that attempts to disprove it. This is how science has been done for hundreds of years. Propose a theory. Others attempt to disprove the theory. After numerous attempts to disprove it, if it still holds its own it becomes accepted.
What we have seen with the global warming research is that almost every study is done to further support their theory, not disprove it. When research is completed that disproves their theory they don't dispute the merit of the research, they simply conceal the research and discredit the authors.
This. The owner of the company I work for has a PHD from MSU in Nuclear Physics. He got sick of the whole scientific community because he said that "science isn't science anymore". He thought that instead of the actual research and science it is all about politics and getting grants $$$$.
He got into business and he says that business is more objective that science because if you offer your customers a good product, service, value, etc. people have to buy from you. Very interesting. I would consider my bosss a moderate btw. Voted for Obama.
These climate scientists apear to be poster childs of what he is talking about. They are more interested in money and power than the actual truth
__________________
"The war drill was designed to get our guys to compete on the boards. We just let them hit each other until somebody dropped. It's a very sophisticated drill."
This. The owner of the company I work for has a PHD from MSU in Nuclear Physics. He got sick of the whole scientific community because he said that "science isn't science anymore". He thought that instead of the actual research and science it is all about politics and getting grants $$$$.
He got into business and he says that business is more objective that science because if you offer your customers a good product, service, value, etc. people have to buy from you. Very interesting. I would consider my bosss a moderate btw. Voted for Obama.
These climate scientists apear to be poster childs of what he is talking about. They are more interested in money and power than the actual truth
Varsity Members (only) Features:
- Mel Gibson
Linear Mode
