Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:

Look at what warmists call experiments, "The experiment has been in progress for a century, steadily increasing GHGs.. Time to reduce GHGs and test that."
They have no concept of experimental design, that's why their science is so bad.

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:

The babbling of an idiot.

Judged:

1

1

1

litesong wrote:

You mean Emma Peel didn't marry James Bond!?
I......I"m....I've been put in a tizzy!!!!

Judged:

1

1

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>An idiot?
So why you continually respond to him?

Judged:

1

1

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>In a wimp's tizzy?
Emma Peel (Diana Rigg) was a fictional character in a tv series called The Avengers and was never mentioned in any Bond book or film.
Dame Enid Diana Elizabeth Rigg DBE, is a Patron of International Care & Relief, so I'm sure she's a confirmed Warmie as well.

Judged:

2

1

1

Brian_G wrote:

That was On Her Majesty's Secret Service but George Lazenby played Bond, probably the worst Bond ever.

Judged:

1

1

1

ObamaRules wrote:

Global warming is a reality! The morons who cannot see it are just interfering with mankind's ability to start taking steps to slow it down and save our planet!

Judged:

1

1

1

ObamaRules wrote:

Global warming is a reality! The morons who cannot see it are just interfering with mankind's ability to start taking steps to slow it down and save our planet!

Judged:

1

1

1

Karl the KingMaker Rove wrote:

Great work Tina and Brian!!!!
Keep chanting it loud and long..."It can't be true because I don't want it to be true!" Don't forget how good repeating it over and over worked for us with that WMD thing back in 2003. Some people still believe it. Worked even better than I expected. Hey, did you catch my boy Dick on TV last night dismissing the President's Afghanistan policy before it was even out of his mouth? He does great work too. Dick never lets the truth get in his way either.

Judged:

2

2

1

Brian_G wrote:

The emails show how "climate scientists" kept research out of journals and away from the IPCC, too. Look for yourself, the evidence is out, now.

It’s almost as if the earlier de Freitas CSPG paper served as a blueprint for what was to come at Climate Research. The formula is simple: find a journal with weak leadership and a complaisant editor, and a policy that enables the selection of sympathetic reviewers. Or even better – get a skeptic installed as editor and get as much anti-AGW pseudo-science published as possible.

That’s what happened at Climate Research, where rogue editor Chris de Freitas greenlighted a series of flawed papers. As related by Chris Mooney, matters came to a head when newly installed editor-in-chief Hans von Storch wanted to revamp journal policies and run an editorial repudiating a particularly flawed de Freitas-edited article by Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon (who had reviewed the earlier de Freitas paper). Publisher Otto van Keine refused, and von Storch promptly resigned. Four other editors followed suit.

The article’s controversial finding:

Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.

But the response in EOS by Mann et al provided a devastating critique of Soon and Baliunas’s methodology, which failed to follow long accepted and elementary principles of paleoclimatology such as the use of decadally resolved (or finer) proxies or accounting for opposing simultaneous regional trends within a larger hemispheric context.

In a telling retrospective, von Storch ruefully said that the situation at the journal turned out to have been more troublesome than he could have imagined.

The review process had utterly failed; important questions have not been asked, as was documented by a comment in EOS by Mann and several coauthors.(The problem is not whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century, or if Mann’s hockey stick is realistic; the problem is that the methodological basis for such a conclusion was simply not given.) It was not the first time that the process had failed, but it was the most severe case. However, my authority as Editor-in-Chief did obviously not cover the publication of an editorial spelling out the problem. The publisher declined the publication, and I cancelled my task as Editor-in-Chief immediately on 28 July 2003.

I withdrew also as editor because I learned during the conflict that CR editors used different scales for judging the validity of an article. Some editors considered the problem of the Soon & Baliunas paper as merely a problem of “opinion”, while it was really a problem of severe methodological flaws. Thus, I decided that I had to disconnect from that journal, which I had served proudly for about 10 years.[Emphasis added]

The whole affair points up other worrisome aspects of “skeptic” science. On the scientific front, Mann and his co-authors responded so convincingly to Soon and Baliunas’s nonsense that even a severe “hockey stick” critic like von Storch had to admit that the paper was worthless.

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:

You do know that the people telling you AGW is a hoax are the very same people who told you WMD's were real?

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>There's a subtle difference, general public opinion was that WMD were a hoax and currently, the same goes for AGW.
It was similar in the 30s, public opinion was that Nazism was a threat, only idiots like Chamberlain thought otherwise.
Whatever you may think of public opinion, it's usually accurate.

Judged:

1

1

1

Karl the KingMaker Rove wrote:

Great work Tina and Brian!!!!
Keep chanting it loud and long..."It can't be true because I don't want it to be true!" Don't forget how good repeating it over and over worked for us with that WMD thing back in 2003. Some people still believe it. Worked even better than I expected. Hey, did you catch my boy Dick on TV last night dismissing the President's Afghanistan policy before it was even out of his mouth? He does great work too. Dick never lets the truth get in his way either.

Judged:

1

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
You do know that the people telling you AGW is a hoax are the very same people who told you WMD's were real?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...