Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As best as I can tell, it hasn't been her life's work. She compiled data and put together a meta-analysis of sorts. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. The scietists that actually supplied her with some of this data disagreed with her interpetation of their data. This cannot be ignored. And to add, when scietists yelp over poor peer-reviewing processes, it's usually a big deal. At least within the scientific community.I read and considered it. I just do not expect for any scientist to except his life's work was a waste of time.
First of all it's she, not a he. Second, if you collect data, create a manuscript, publish, and then have it cited erroneously, it's going to cause alarm or at the very least be annoying. Frankly, it's a matter of common sense and ethics from where I sit. When I use another scientist's work in one of my projects, and if I'm not clear on something, I just pop him/her an email for clarification (providing the paper is somewhat recent). If what has been noted is true, and the original authors took issue with her interpretation of THEIR work, than that is something that cannot be brushed aside.They are going to "prove" the person proving them wrong interpreted the data wrong and thus the wrongness of his wrongness was completely wrong so I desire more money for my department so can continue to prove the wrong of those who clearly do not understand the information I collected to show how wrong they were.
I do not go to the IPCC or Nova, nor do I seek out CATO. I read a lot. I come across all kinds of information, some of it even from Nova. But, I do not gulp it down and believe everything I am told. I compare new information with old and draw MY own conclusions. Years ago I read an article about the amount of buffalo in north America found by the first European explorers. Herds went from horizon to horizon. They found huge swathes of grassland reduced to dirt and poo where these giant herds moved thru. I have seen on Nova about how elepants could be found in greater numbers in the last century. Marlin Perkins told me as a kid (man I am old) about the worlds critters were more abundant in times past. Then I read how the raising of cattle will reduce the world to an ashen cinder due to methane.
What do cows have in common with buffalo, elephants, zebras and puffins? They all eat, poo, pass gas, exhale, die and make more cattle, buffalo, elephants, zebras and puffins. All of which causes methane and carbon dioxide. Since no-one has proven a greater number of cattle, pigs, and chickens than buffalo, elephants, zebras and puffins of the past. Then I blew this guy off as another gloom and doomer trying to elbow his way to the government tit.
And Mann's hockey stick was dis-proven by some-one else using the scientific method. You can also prove that NASA proved that NASA was right. Wow, I just can not believe NASA would work overtime to prove they are not wrong. The NAS gets most of their funding form let us see, oh yea the government, NAS and NASA have no dog in this fight.
Thousands of people die each year due to electrical shock. Are you willing to go down to the river and bet your clothes on a rock to wash them? How about running that thing you sit in front of? Are you going to hook a generator to a bike and pedal while you type?
As I said before, Kyoto does not cover China. Are you willing to spend trillions on carbon security? Are you willing to go to war to stop China form burning dirty coal?
You may want to change what you read, because it seems that your sources are grossly misleading you. No, Mann's diagram was not disproved by anyone. It was suggested that the statistical method Mann used had a tendency to exaggerate the 'hockey stick' shape. To make sure this was not influencing the data, the National Academies reanalyzed Manns data using a several different statistical techniques (that are not prone to the hockey stick shape) and found the same results. You will notice that the plot of two millenia of temperature I presented earlier has the hockey stick shape (and in fact it includes Mann's data) but is drawn from ten independent data sources. As for the NASA temperature record, if you had read the link I posted you would have noticed that the data was confirmed by NOAA, which is a totally independent agency from NASA.
You still seem to be confused about the climate science and climate policy. Whether or not climate change is occurring is in no way affected by the policy to address climate change. Kyoto has nothing to do with whether or not climate change is occurring, it is a response to climate change. If you have a problem with Kyoto or carbon credits, that is fine, but it does not in anyway undermine the scientific basis of anthropogenic climate change.
You are being overly dramatic about cattle reducing the world to cinders, no one has made that claim. Domestic cattle are a source of methane, but overall they are a much smaller contribution to green house gasses than the combustion of fossil fuels. While methane from cattle contributes to the greenhouse effect, it is but a small part.
As best as I can tell, it hasn't been her life's work. She compiled data and put together a meta-analysis of sorts. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. The scietists that actually supplied her with some of this data disagreed with her interpetation of their data. This cannot be ignored. And to add, when scietists yelp over poor peer-reviewing processes, it's usually a big deal. At least within the scientific community.
First of all it's she, not a he. Second, if you collect data, create a manuscript, publish, and then have it cited erroneously, it's going to cause alarm or at the very least be annoying. Frankly, it's a matter of common sense and ethics from where I sit. When I use another scientist's work in one of my projects, and if I'm not clear on something, I just pop him/her an email for clarification (providing the paper is somewhat recent). If what has been noted is true, and the original authors took issue with her interpretation of THEIR work, than that is something that cannot be brushed aside.
As I noted pages ago IRT to the petition, if one roach is found, there's bound to be a thousand in the wall. This compromises the integrity of the source, hence that section of the vid, and probably the vid in its entirety.
Nir Shaviv = Israeli/American physics professor, carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science. He is currently an associate professor at the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv
His peer reviewed paper on his evidence.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0409/0409123v1.pdf
Ho hum, these bits are a bit farther north of France than 22 miles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckinghamshire
These bits are farther north.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridgeshire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northamptonshire
And these bits are a lot farther north.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincolnshire
I got these form the article which had you read it, it would have been plain to you. Here is the quote;
"To date the research has identified the remains of seven Romano-British vineyards - four in Northamptonshire, one in Cambridgeshire, one in Lincolnshire and one in Buckinghamshire."
I have also read elsewhere that the Romans were growing grapes as far north as Scotland. This article goes on to state;
"In Roman times, Britain had a slightly warmer climate than now; and, with 500 to 600mm of rain a year, Northamptonshire is at the lower end of the British precipitation range, which would have meant fewer fungal problems. The area would therefore have been suitable for grape production."
From what I have read it was not a case of desire, but the quantity and quality of the grapes.
Well from the map it shows most of the wine vineyards are in the south of France. I do not know a lot about grapes but I am sure there a strains that grow better in one place than another. I would not doubt some of those strains were not around in the times that Roman occupied Briton.
I do not deny that there are other climates. You got tropical, sub-tropical, mountian, arctic, rainy, dry, etc.. I do not deny the plant as a whole has warmed 3/10th of a degree. I just know from what I have read and know to be true that Man Made Global Warming is a hoax.
Well in that case you have probably failed to understand the evidence, some people are just not cut out for understanding complex scientific problems perhaps you are one of them.
You have signally failed to understand that grapes have been grown in the UK since their introduction by the Romans and that the decline in British wine making was more to do with changing British tastes and cheap imports than an inability to make wine from British grapes.
Now that desire to make British wine is back Britain, once again, has a thriving trade in viticulture. This isn't due to the fact that the earth is warming but due to a desire by Britons to make wine.
South facing, I wonder what is in the sky above a south facing wall? Must be something hot.
Correct, it is the sun. Vinyards world wide face south if possible, that allows wine to be commercially produced as far North as Leeds in the UK. With the right sort of situation I don't doubt wine could be made from Scottish grapes. Soft fruits are grown in abundance in the Tayside area, But the lack of good soil types on the hillsides would probably scupper vine growing.
Never going to be ideal for some sorts of wine making,
No one ever claimed it would be
Can't say I am a big wine drinker, but if I can find it I will see if wife likes it.
British White, Rose and sparkling wines can be excellent. I have yet to find an excellent british red wine because the growing season isn't long enough.
I have to say I am yet to work out what point you are trying to make with your claims about viticulture in the UK.
Are you trying to say that grapes can not be grown? Doubtful as that flies in the face of reality.
You appear to accept that the Earth is warming but deny and anthropic drive, in which case I fail to see the value in arguing that viticulture hasn't existed in the UK because grapes, at certain times, couldn't be grown here.
Can you enlighten me as to your point, if you have one?
I do not go to the IPCC or Nova, nor do I seek out CATO. I read a lot. I come across all kinds of information, some of it even from Nova. But, I do not gulp it down and believe everything I am told. I compare new information with old and draw MY own conclusions.
First off, I can tell you and the other fellow I have been bantering with in this thread are scientist. You guys just do not get sarcasm. Or maybe it is my sarcasm you do not get. Come to think of it no-one does. Damn, maybe I am not funny. That sucks. I hope I am not another Al Franken.
Point is the guys who put together their interpretation of the work they did are not going to let some-one come along and use it in a way they do not agree with. Whether or not she is right. Scientist are just like any-one else. They are human and do not want to be told they are wrong. The movies of the 1950s where the older scientist sees the error of his ways and admits he is wrong are just that, movies. The young masculine scientist that kills the giant spider in 120 minutes just does not exist. (The giant spider thing is a metaphor.)
You may want to change what you read.
Start here then here. These people are really off their bean. They seem to be saying even though Mann's work just throws the MWP and LIA out the window does not mean it is not true. What about verifiable and repeatable?
How in the wide world of sports do you separate them? You have the little minions of gloom and doom spewing forth their prophecies about how my steak or car is killing children in Africa and global politicians chomping at the bit to use those musing to control me and spend my money.
I was not being overly dramatic. I was slathering on the sarcasm. But it is what these guys are saying. And these guys. And these guys. Well not the cinders part but you get what I mean.
As a side note I did find this. It is good to know other folks are thinking too.
From what I've gathered, the issue is that Soon and Baliunas (SB03) state that recent hemispheric-scale warmth is not unprecendented in the context of the past millennium based on data that is not necessarily temp related (when attempting to discern past temps) and data confined to a specific region, rather than several regions. If I'm wrong on this, please correct me. I'm only going to address one of the points made, though the articles I'll link evaluate all 3 that lay at the basis of criticism of SB03's work.Point is the guys who put together their interpretation of the work they did are not going to let some-one come along and use it in a way they do not agree with.
Presentation by Warren Meyer, of climate-skeptic.com, at the California Regional Council of Rural Counties at South Lake Tahoe in September, 2008. ]
Presentation by Warren Meyer, of climate-skeptic.com, at the California Regional Council of Rural Counties at South Lake Tahoe in September, 2008. The presentation is called "Don't Panic -- A Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory." Focuses on a number of topics, including the lack of real evidence of anthropogenic climate change as well as the use of positive feedback in models to create catastrophic forecasts.
Here are the facts.
If you believe only part of the Bible you will be confused and wrong on the subject.
If you believe all of the Bible you will be able to see what evidence is actually real eveidence and what it points to or not.
And if you believe none of the bible you will be able to view the evidence objectively without having to bear in mind what Bronze Age goat herders thought about a problem they could never have conceived of.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-82026648.htmlWhat about Silicon Age People herders (Bible thumpers). Are they aware of the dramatic decrease in the polar ice mass?
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-82026648.html
However, an investigation by scientists who studied the shrinkage and expansion of ice using satellite radars has found that rather than losing about 21 billion tons of ice a year, west Antarctica is accumulating nearly 27 billion tons.
The ice between Canada and southwestern Greenland has reached its highest level in 15 years.
http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?