22 Jul 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou've been a member of this site for nearly 10 years. And in all this time you don't recall anyone at the science forum (or debate forum or any other forum) talking about data being fudged, or suppression of information conflicting with the global warming narrative. Is this correct?
When did the name change supposedly take place? Which scandals are you referring to? I don't read your local paper if that is what you are asking. I am Zambian.
You've never heard about this from any news source... radio, television, newspapers, internet, etc. etc. Is this correct?
And I must also assume you have never spoken to any fellow Zambians who knew anything about this. Is this also correct?
22 Jul 14
I checked out two different Wikipedia links regarding the scandal, and as it turns out I was wrong. Contributors to Wikipedia have gone much further than simply soft-peddling the issue.
Both of those pages turned out to be a denial that anyone inside the global warming community had done anything wrong. Not only that, but in both of those links Wiki tries turning the tables by pointing fingers at the people who exposed the fraud, and accuses them of wrong doing.
So, anyone here interested in seeing those links? I'll continue looking for more from Wiki, but I'll be happy to post the links to those two pages if anyone here is really interested in see them.
22 Jul 14
Originally posted by lemon limeWell I personally am not aware of when this name change took place. I wasn't even aware that a name change did take place - and you are yet to provide any evidence that it did.
It's a matter of public record, and certainly not a secret kept hidden from the rest of the world. Why anyone in Zambia would not be aware of this is something I can't answer, because I am not Zambian.
As for the scandals you mentioned, - again I am not aware of any major scandals, nor have you told us what these scandals are. So apparently they were kept hidden from us Zambians - or we just take less interest in US politics than you think.
22 Jul 14
Originally posted by lemon limeI recall a few years back mention on this site of a scandal involving some emails in the UK. I do not know the details. I didn't hear much about it from other sources so I didn't give it much thought. Is that one of the scandals you are referring to?
You've been a member of this site for nearly 10 years. And in all this time you don't recall anyone at the science forum (or debate forum or any other forum) talking about data being fudged, or suppression of information conflicting with the global warming narrative. Is this correct?
You've never heard about this from any news source... radio, television, newspapers, internet, etc. etc. Is this correct?
Correct.
And I must also assume you have never spoken to any fellow Zambians who knew anything about this. Is this also correct?
Correct.
22 Jul 14
Originally posted by lemon limeOn Wikipedia, all unsourced information may be challenged and removed. That does not mean that everything is correct or unbiased, but it does tend to be more reliable than news articles (depending on the topic). There's nothing stopping global warming sceptics to add relevant information to the article about global cooling. In fact, if you have reliable information that suggests that global cooling was a more popular hypothesis than global warming in the 1970s, you can add it to the article.
What if anything does Wikipedia have to say regarding the scandal I mentioned? I suspect if there is any mention of it at all it would probably be soft peddled in some way.
I know that whatever information I get from Wikipedia is from contributors who don't necessarily know (or will report) all of the relevant facts. You once referred me to a page abou ...[text shortened]... that can be discussed... are you a global warming scandal denier? Or do you also live in Zambia?
On certain topics, such as for example acupuncture, pro-acupuncture activists have often accused Wikipedia of bias, since the articles on alternative medicine will usually just say the methods have not been shown to work. However, this is not really "bias" since it is quite clear that most alternative medicine theories are bollocks.
As a scientist myself I am quite aware of the limitations of the peer review process. It can be quite arbitrary, and one should certainly not trust something merely because it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Still, it's better than nothing.
I am not sure what the "global warming scandal" is. Are you referring to the East Anglia thing? From what I had gathered, it is a storm in a teacup played up by global warming sceptics.
22 Jul 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI can confer:
Well I personally am not aware of when this name change took place. I wasn't even aware that a name change did take place - and you are yet to provide any evidence that it did.
As for the scandals you mentioned, - again I am not aware of any major scandals, nor have you told us what these scandals are. So apparently they were kept hidden from us Zambians - or we just take less interest in US politics than you think.
I am not a Zambian but British and I ALSO have never heard of any such name change NOR heard of any of these scandals alleged by lemon lime to have taken place. Strange that! I think they never existed other than in his own mind.
22 Jul 14
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou make a lot of unwarranted assumptions. You assume I get my information from local sources (meaning the immediate area of the country I live in) and seem to assume this is only something that someone from the U.S. would be aware of. If you google "global warming scandals" you can find loads of information tailored specifically for someone like you. Wikipedia exists for people like you, people who have traditionally supported whistle blowers, until those whistle blowers betray you and use their whistles to expose fraud you don't want seen.
Well I personally am not aware of when this name change took place. I wasn't even aware that a name change did take place - and you are yet to provide any evidence that it did.
As for the scandals you mentioned, - again I am not aware of any major scandals, nor have you told us what these scandals are. So apparently they were kept hidden from us Zambians - or we just take less interest in US politics than you think.
From my point of view and based on what you've said, it might seem you live under a form of government that tightly controls what news you are allowed to see and news not allowed to be seen. But I doubt that is the case, I think any censorship preventing you from being aware of what happens in the world comes directly from you... and I'm not kidding when I say I have never seen this level of self censorship in anyone else. Whether you agree with the skeptics or not, I don't know how it's possible for you to not even be aware this.
My theory of how this may be possible is that you have seen (or heard) reports of it, but dismissed it out of hand as soon as you were aware it did not line up with your personal beliefs... it's easy to forget something if you've already judged it to be false, so I really don't believe you've heard nothing about this... I believe you're not aware of it now because you quickly filed it away somewhere in your mind under "goofy conspiracy theories".
I don't believe your government closely monitors news reports so it can remove information it doesn't want you to see. Instead I believe you indulge in the most extreme form of self censorship and self imposed ignorance that I can recall ever seeing. But that's assuming I can believe everything you say about yourself, and what you claim to know or don't know.
Edit: Well, it appears I'll have to retract the following statement:
...I believe you indulge in the most extreme form of self censorship and self imposed ignorance that I can recall ever seeing.
That's what I get for responding in the order these messages appear, instead of reading the entire page first. At least one other person here seems to share your same mindset... and simply calling someone a loon is meaningless, so imo that one didn't count.
22 Jul 14
Originally posted by lemon limeChoose better authorities for pities sake. Booker looked at one paper (an HSE report) and decides that white asbestos is as dangerous as Talcum powder. He did some good work before 1990 but seems to have become obsessed with bureaucracies since then. To give you an idea of his rigour here's a quote from his Wikipedia page:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
Wilson highlighted Booker's repeated endorsement of the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle, who in 2004 was convicted under the UK's Trade Descriptions Act of making false claims about his qualifications.He also thinks there is no link between nvCJD and BSE and believes in Intelligent design. In this matter he's once again found someone to quote who doesn't get it right. Here's a quote from Wikipedia's page on how reliable Goddard is:
Politifact contacted Berkeley Earth scientist Zeke Hausfather, who told them that the problem with Goddard's analysis was that it ignored the changes the network of U.S. weather stations had undergone over the last eighty years. Goddard's claims were also criticized by fellow climate skeptic Anthony Watts, who argued that his assertions of data fabrication were "wrong", and criticized him for using absolute temperatures rather than anomalies in his analysis.Goddard's real name is Tony Heller and his qualifications are in Geology and Electrical Engineering, and not climate science.
22 Jul 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtChoose better authorities...
Choose better authorities for pities sake. Booker looked at one paper (an HSE report) and decides that white asbestos is as dangerous as Talcum powder. He did some good work before 1990 but seems to have become obsessed with bureaucracies since then. To give you an idea of his rigour here's a quote from his Wikipedia page:[quote]Wilson highlighted Boo ...[text shortened]... eller and his qualifications are in Geology and Electrical Engineering, and not climate science.
Is Wikipedia a better authority?
I grabbed the first article I saw that did not line up with the global warming narrative. Nevertheless your point is well taken.
22 Jul 14
2 edits
Does anyone here recall seeing stories of ice core samples showing a high level of CO2 occurring before a period of global warming? Later it was discovered that someone made a "mistake". As it turns out the higher levels of CO2 showed up after a period of global warming, and not before.
On the one hand reports of increased CO2 in the atmosphere confirm the global warming narrative, but the corrected version of order seems to suggest the opposite. What could possibly account for higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere following a period of global warming, rather than coming before and thereby initiating a period of global warming? How is it possible for global warming to create higher levels of CO2 rather than CO2 being the cause of global warming?
Has anyone in the global warming community been able to correct the corrected report, or has this been swept under the rug long enough for it to have never happened?
Edit: And just for the sake of speculation, how likely is it this report would have ever seen the light of day if no one had mistakenly gotten the order of events mixed up? In other words, how often have we seen global warmists willingly offer up hard evidence contradicting their claims?
22 Jul 14
Originally posted by lemon limeWhat "stories" are you talking about?
Does anyone here recall seeing stories of ice core samples showing a high level of CO2 occurring before a period of global warming? Later it was discovered that someone made a "mistake". As it turns out the higher levels of CO2 showed up after a period of global warming, and not before.
On the one hand reports of increased CO2 in the atmo ...[text shortened]... orrected report, or has this been swept under the rug long enough for it to have never happened?
Here are some graphs depicting recent trends in atmospheric CO2-levels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_CO2