The real holes in climate science

The real holes in climate science
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1001...l/463284a.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/pdf/463284a.pdf

"The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) in November presented an early Christmas present to
climate-change denialists. Amid the more than 1,000 messages were
several controversial comments that — taken out of context — seemingly
indicate that climate scientists have been hiding a mound of dirty
laundry from the public.

"A fuller reading of the e-mails from CRU in Norwich, UK, does show a
sobering amount of rude behaviour and verbal faux pas, but nothing that
challenges the scientific consensus of climate change. Still, the
incident provides a good opportunity to point out that — as in any
active field of inquiry — there are some major gaps in the understanding
of climate science. In its most recent report in 2007, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted 54 'key
uncertainties' that complicate climate science.

On Jan 22, 7:23*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
The real holes in climate science
* *http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1001...l/463284a.html
* *http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/pdf/463284a.pdf

"The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) in November presented an early Christmas present to
climate-change denialists. Amid the more than 1,000 messages were
several controversial comments that — taken out of context — seemingly
indicate that climate scientists have been hiding a mound of dirty
laundry from the public.

"A fuller reading of the e-mails from CRU in Norwich, UK, does show a
sobering amount of rude behaviour and verbal faux pas, but nothing that
challenges the scientific consensus of climate change. Still, the
incident provides a good opportunity to point out that — as in any
active field of inquiry — there are some major gaps in the understanding
of climate science. In its most recent report in 2007, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted 54 'key
uncertainties' that complicate climate science.

Then you should rest assured that Parliament will only but reassure us
of your assertion.
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamenta...ru_inquiry.cfm

Bets anyone?

--Mike Jr.

Shouldn't that be the real ho's in ckimate science?

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
The real holes in climate science
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1001...l/463284a.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/pdf/463284a.pdf

"The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research
Unit (CRU) in November presented an early Christmas present to
climate-change denialists. Amid the more than 1,000 messages were several
controversial comments that — taken out of context — seemingly indicate
that climate scientists have been hiding a mound of dirty laundry from the
public.

"A fuller reading of the e-mails from CRU in Norwich, UK, does show a
sobering amount of rude behaviour and verbal faux pas, but nothing that
challenges the scientific consensus of climate change. Still, the incident
provides a good opportunity to point out that — as in any active field of
inquiry — there are some major gaps in the understanding of climate
science. In its most recent report in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted 54 'key uncertainties' that complicate
climate science.

On Jan 22, 7:34*pm, Mike Jr wrote:
On Jan 22, 7:23*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:



The real holes in climate science
* *http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1001...l/463284a.html
* *http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/pdf/463284a.pdf

"The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) in November presented an early Christmas present to
climate-change denialists. Amid the more than 1,000 messages were
several controversial comments that — taken out of context — seemingly
indicate that climate scientists have been hiding a mound of dirty
laundry from the public.

"A fuller reading of the e-mails from CRU in Norwich, UK, does show a
sobering amount of rude behaviour and verbal faux pas, but nothing that
challenges the scientific consensus of climate change. Still, the
incident provides a good opportunity to point out that — as in any
active field of inquiry — there are some major gaps in the understanding
of climate science. In its most recent report in 2007, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted 54 'key
uncertainties' that complicate climate science.

Then you should rest assured that Parliament will only but reassure us
of your assertion.http://www.parliament.uk/parliamenta...ce_technology/...

Bets anyone?

--Mike Jr.

In the interest of getting to the full truth, I am sure that you will
be happy to learn that Congress will also be taking a hard look at the
US Department of Energy's ties to UEA CRU.

"Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) is pressing Energy Secretary Steven Chu for
information about department ties to the U.K. climate institute at the
center of the controversy over the infamous hacked climate science
emails.

Barton, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) wrote to Chu Friday asking about DoE funding
for projects connected to the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the
University of East Anglia.

Emails among scientists connected to CRU made public last year
prompted allegations by climate skeptics -- including Barton and
several other Republicans -- that the researchers squelched
inconvenient data. But many scientists and Obama administration
officials say the emails have done nothing to dent evidence of human-
induced global warming."

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677...science-emails

--Mike Jr.

On Jan 22, 11:30*pm, Mike Jr wrote:

Emails among scientists connected to CRU made public last year
prompted allegations by climate skeptics -- including Barton and
several other Republicans -- *that the researchers squelched
inconvenient data. But many scientists and Obama administration
officials say the emails have done nothing to dent evidence of human-
induced global warming."

Well this is sure a balanced and fair piece...NOT! At least they used
the term "climate skeptics" rather than the stronger "AGW deniers".
The latter getting it's force by drawing a parallel with neo-Nazi
history revisionists who deny that anyone died in the concentration
camps which were really beautiful heath resorts. In other words the
implication is that anyone not singing the AGW party line is some evil
nut case.

So in any post here or elsewhere where you see the term "denier" with
respect to the climate change question. You can simply stop reading.
What ever it's saying, it's certainly not balanced and fair and most
likely a lie. But the real propaganda trick above is the "but phrase"
at the end of the article.

Journalists all know this trick. First is the fact that what people
carry away from an article tends to be the headlines and last
sentence. The headline is not slanted, but check that last sentence.
It works like this: But is a VERY powerful word. The effect of 'but"
in a sentence is for the average person to immediately ignore all that
went before it. "Joe is a good guy, BUT got caught stealing." I like
you, but you always smell bad! Hence the journalistic craft of stating
a balanced report and then ending it with a "but phrase" to make you
point. In this case the point clearly is that the Obama administration
rejects any evidence in the email expose and still asserts AGW is
totally true and believed by the majority of "scientists".

If you think about this for a minute, you'll see that the AGW crowd
are the true "deniers" as they use their "models" to deny the
existence of actual scientific data that does not support their
conclusions. Hint: The fact that Florida is not covered with seawater
is proof that the Obama administration are the deniers. And that
doesn't even begin to address evidence that a trace gas like CO2 can't
have the effects claimed for it.

On Jan 22, 7:23*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
The real holes in climate science
* *http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1001...l/463284a.html
* *http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/pdf/463284a.pdf

"The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) in November presented an early Christmas present to
climate-change denialists. Amid the more than 1,000 messages were
several controversial comments that — taken out of context — seemingly
indicate that climate scientists have been hiding a mound of dirty
laundry from the public.

"A fuller reading of the e-mails from CRU in Norwich, UK, does show a
sobering amount of rude behaviour and verbal faux pas, but nothing that
challenges the scientific consensus of climate change. Still, the
incident provides a good opportunity to point out that — as in any
active field of inquiry — there are some major gaps in the understanding
of climate science. In its most recent report in 2007, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted 54 'key
uncertainties' that complicate climate science.

Sam I am the Florida meteorologist,and Earth warming gave me my "Heavy
air theory" More moisture in the air means greater storms. Sam its an
easy theory,and being proved in LA area,and the snow belts. Florida
this Sunday could break a heat record. TreBert

On 1/23/10 8:09 AM, bert wrote:
On Jan 22, 7:23 pm, Sam wrote:
The real holes in climate science
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1001...l/463284a.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/pdf/463284a.pdf

"The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) in November presented an early Christmas present to
climate-change denialists. Amid the more than 1,000 messages were
several controversial comments that — taken out of context — seemingly
indicate that climate scientists have been hiding a mound of dirty
laundry from the public.

"A fuller reading of the e-mails from CRU in Norwich, UK, does show a
sobering amount of rude behaviour and verbal faux pas, but nothing that
challenges the scientific consensus of climate change. Still, the
incident provides a good opportunity to point out that — as in any
active field of inquiry — there are some major gaps in the understanding
of climate science. In its most recent report in 2007, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted 54 'key
uncertainties' that complicate climate science.

Sam I am the Florida meteorologist,and Earth warming gave me my "Heavy
air theory" More moisture in the air means greater storms. Sam its an
easy theory,and being proved in LA area,and the snow belts. Florida
this Sunday could break a heat record. TreBert


You sound like a blowhard storm, Herb. All blow and no show.

On 22 Jan, 19:23, Sam Wormley wrote:
The real holes in climate science
* *http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1001...l/463284a.html
* *http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/pdf/463284a.pdf

"The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) in November presented an early Christmas present to
climate-change denialists. Amid the more than 1,000 messages were
several controversial comments that — taken out of context — seemingly
indicate that climate scientists have been hiding a mound of dirty
laundry from the public.

"A fuller reading of the e-mails from CRU in Norwich, UK, does show a
sobering amount of rude behaviour and verbal faux pas, but nothing that
challenges the scientific consensus of climate change. Still, the
incident provides a good opportunity to point out that — as in any
active field of inquiry — there are some major gaps in the understanding
of climate science. In its most recent report in 2007, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted 54 'key
uncertainties' that complicate climate science.

Sam My heavy air theory is right on the money. It is reality and
based on global warming. Simple easy theory. TreBert PS I am the
Florida meteorogist for altastronomy. I try harder to do a better
predicting job than the experts O ya TreBert

On 1/22/2010 6:23 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
The real holes in climate science
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1001...l/463284a.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/pdf/463284a.pdf

"The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) in November presented an early Christmas present to
climate-change denialists. Amid the more than 1,000 messages were
several controversial comments that — taken out of context — seemingly
indicate that climate scientists have been hiding a mound of dirty
laundry from the public.

"A fuller reading of the e-mails from CRU in Norwich, UK, does show a
sobering amount of rude behaviour and verbal faux pas, but nothing that
challenges the scientific consensus of climate change. Still, the
incident provides a good opportunity to point out that — as in any
active field of inquiry — there are some major gaps in the understanding
of climate science. In its most recent report in 2007, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted 54 'key
uncertainties' that complicate climate science.

Here is something to help fill the holes:

http://tinyurl.com/ye6aa9f

AGW? Is that Al Gore Whores?