@drkstrong They have HUNDREDS of models running so one of them is bound to hit it correctly. Its like when something happens in the world and they they find it in the Bible.
Recent models after Katrina had predicted many major hurricans, Wrong.
The first Earth Day was all about Global Cooling & the models back then said we were to FREEZE to death due to polution in the atmosphere.
All Research funded is to Find Global Warming, what do you think they will find???
@Texmurphy51 I assume you are talking about the 1970's scare about global cooling. The popular press is not the scientific literature - remember all the fuss about cold fusion?
At the time the number of scientific papers about the possibility of global cooling were outnumbered by a margin of 5 to 1 by those about global warming. The ironic thing is that the original global cooling paper said it would happen UNLESS HUMAN INFLUENCES overwhelm the natural trend - why forget to mention that?
Wrong again the huge research budget numbers you hear about are inflated. They talk of $3B/y. About 2/3rds of that are huge subsidies disguised as research $s for oil, power, & agribusiness
Of the remaining $1B, most of it goes to aerospace companies to build & operate rockets, satellites and instruments. The remaining $50M - $70M mostly goes to pay for research students. Most climatologists dont get grants, they get paid no matter what they find.
@drkstrong The press are not scientific but are you saying Al Gore is??
In the 70s the press was reporting Science from people like Carl Sagen, & others. Computer models show it, winters were getting colder and everyone believed it, Just like now. I am sure when the climate starts to cool again the papers & models that are correct will be pointed to as being ignored also. Do you know where the entire Global Warming movement started??
@Texmurphy51 No, Al gore was a reporter before he became a politician - i.e., he was the press.
Everyone did not believe it. The press reported the speculation from part of 1 paper and forgot to mention most of the rest. What they did forget to mention was that for every paper speculating on gobal cooling there were 5 science papers support global warming.
Ironically the global cooling result is still valid - for we are heading for another ice age - in about 14,000 years.
@drkstrong Correct on the ice age but its less than 14K yrs. The argument is over Man Made Warming, warming has happend since the last ice age. The 5:1 papers is a skewed, I have not seen them all but non predict runaway warming but warming until the coming ice age. Its a bogus argument like the so called "97% of climate scientists believe in man made warming"
10,200 scientists were hand picked in 2007, 3146 responded, most were, petroleum geologists, or meteorologists. Few Climate Scientists
@Texmurphy51 They were "hand picked" by reuiring them to have published some papers on the climate. Wow, that's a tough criterion to meet for a research climatologist.
Why would they want to include petroleum geologists? They are the ones opposing the AGW theory.
@drkstrong Any published papers are peer reviewed. Anti Global Warming papers never see the light of day through this process. Do you think any of the AGW climatologiests were on this list? NO.
petroleum geologists are not all AGW as not all climatologists are Warmers dispite what you hear on the news.
The UN reports are not from climatologists but Bureaucrats who speak for them.
@Texmurphy51 No, some journals have opinion sections. Those are not reviewed. (that is how Moncton claims to have a climate paper published - it was an opinion piece)
Lindzen, Christy, and Douglass have published several papers. But the others have nop scientific evidence to back their case so cant get anything published - they dont try or rig the process by publishing in off topic journals like the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons reviewed by friends.
@drkstrong How can one get scientific evidence when all the research is geared to find Warming?
The data was restricted until it was Hacked into the light of day & shown to be modified as well as original data deleted. Since the heads of all the organizations like Hanson are Warming Believers, do you think they will hire somone with a contrary view? How long do you think you would work for NASA or others if you let it be know you question Global Warming?
@Texmurphy51 On the contrary the research is into how the climate changes & they discovered that it is warming (about 30 years ago) the research is to find out why (completed 15 years ago).
The data has all been available for years, I have been looking at NOAA NCDC for 10 years
I know at least two people at NASA that question it. You see the thing about government scientist is that you cannot fire them so they can hold & espouse any opinion they want. Thus they are neutral in all this
@drkstrong CRU has admitted that ALL,(150years) the "raw data" had been DUMPED. Onlly the "value-added (quality controlled and homogenised data" is available. What your seeing is what they want you to see.
As for Gov scientest being neutral, if they cant be fired they can be moved into an obscure job. As for firing see Dr. James Enstrom's. Scientists that are Gov funded have that funding removed if they do not have the "proper findings" of the mission.
@Texmurphy51 It dumped data that it got from other national and international sources that were on paper and 7-track tape; neither of which is readable these days. The same data is available at NOAA NCDC now (go log on and request anything you want - warning they charge a nominal fee for it) or from the original sources. CRU is not a national center so has no obligation to archive or distribute data - that in the UK is Hadley.
Enstrom was not a governemnt scientist he worked for UCLA.
@drkstrong Paper tape & 7 track tape not readable??? Bullshit, if your trying to tell me there is no way to read this your dead wrong. All these machines are still in existence so there is no excuse. I again say the data you now refere to has been Modified.
Yes Enstrom was a UCLA scientists who worked for the Government on a project. He was fired for not finding the correct data. This the POINT. Incorrect data leads to firing or Gov workers get moved to obscurity.
@Texmurphy51 It is not whether the 7 track or paper tape readers still exist ( they probably do in a mesuem) but whether the tapes were usable. Paper tape readers were already obsoletes when I was a PhD student in the early 70's. We ditched our 7-tracks decks after NASA told us to dispose of all the 7 track tapes in our possession in 1989 because the tapes had decayed to the point of being unreadable.
Because you work on a government contract does not mean you are a government employee.
@Texmurphy51 Because, as I stated before CRU has no obligation to copy, preserve, or distribute data. If they needed to save space what better way than to dump unuseable tapes?
Ask NASA or any other agency where the raw data tapes are for any mission before say 1990.
You obviously understand so little about the grant process. I have served on over 20 grant committees over the years and the process is nothing like you think it is. Dont criticize what you dont understand - it is just foolish
@drkstrong They never said the tapes were "unuseable" I am hearing that from you & that is a great after the fact excuse but if they were able to convert them, why not copy them?
Well if you worked on a gran committee then tell me why no grants are given to Scientists who are know Not to believe in Warming? This is like the Tobacco Companies experiments, do you think they will fund & publish experiments to show tobacco causes cancer? Any on the grant committee who dont believe in warming???
@Texmurphy51 Yes, I am telling you that the life of a 7-track tape was about 10 years - those tapes were useless.
Grants are given to scientists that dont believe in global warming - I know that Spencer, Lindzen, and Christy have won grants int he past. Many of the rest are so rich on oil money they dont need grants or could not qualify (you have to declare your sources of income and % of your time covered by existing sources of funding. If that is 100% then you do not qualify for a grant).
@drkstrong If the tape life was 10 years, & they knew it, why just convert the numbers on reading them, but Not save the original numbers? I would think sloppyness like this would carry on into other observations & calculations. Your saying all climate research that is anti warming is funded by the oil companies. Perhaps thats because people like you dont grant them money.
Tell me... how many requests did you get for anti warming research, How many got money???
@Texmurphy51 How many times do I have to tell you that the numbers are still available elsewhere - so why would they need to keep a duplicate copy? They are a research group, not a data archive.
On the grants - why dont you read what I type rather than reinterpreting it? I said I know for a fact that several of the most prominent deniers have won research grants. The problem is that if their annual salary is already taken care of (from any other sources) they are inelligible for a fed grant.
@drkstrong If the Data numbers are avilable elsewhere then why dont they use them instead of the modified data?
I didnt reinterpret your statement. I asked you a direct question.
Tell me... how many requests did you get for anti warming research, How many got money???
As for salary, you mean to say that all the warmer grants you give are to researchers who have not income? Are they not already employeed in some degree at the University? How does a employed prominant scientest get a grant?
@Texmurphy51 They can use those numbers - they choose not to. It would be a lot of work and cost a lot of money to redo the analysis from the start.
I know the deniers got funding because in their papers and presentations you have to put at the end an acknowledgement to the grant awarding body if it is from federal funding. I have seen several such statements.
About 1 in 6 grants are successful.
Grants are awarded to those who do not have a full income up to the amount they are short.
@drkstrong sez "Grants are awarded to those who do not have a full income up to the amount they are short"
So that means that anyone should qualify for a grant. Why would anti-warmers turn to oil companies if they could get a grant? I think the reason they seek other funding is that Gov grants are not possible.
Why was the original data not used in the first place instead of the value-added conversion?
Satelite data was also modified because of errors & merged with surface data.
@Texmurphy51 "So that means that anyone should qualify for a grant." anyone is eligible for a grant but only 1 in 6 win one. So would you be willing to get paid only once in 6 years? The oil company money does not have the same restrictions that the federal granst to. They can (and do) provide 2 or 3 times a person's annual salary.
One denier complained to western fuels that he had run out of money after 6 months and wanted ANOTHER $160K. Thats $320K/year which is 3 times a scientist's salary
@Texmurphy51 Part II: The original data was used to derive the corrected data - science is littered with examples of scientists using uncorrected data & getting things complete wrong. I had someone use some of my data once & thought he had discovered the source of coronal heating - a 90 min oscillation that was hugely powerful, he hadnt corrected for the 90-min orbital period of the satellite
@Texmurphy51 "Satelite data was also modified because of errors & merged with surface data. Questionable." You make my point perfectly. Christy, a widely respected denier, made a big thing about the satellite data showed the Earth was cooling. He used raw data (OOps!) but it was discovered that he had forgotten that the satellite orbit precesses in time. It started out as a noon orbit (hot) & precessed slowly to a dawn orbit (cool). His error was discovered by Bush's own climate panel!
@drkstrong What is your point telling me Christy used raw satelite data to prove cooling, when warmers used THE SAME DATA to prove Warming? (OOps) If the data was incorrect from the start how was Global Warming found before it was discovered the flaw? (OOps).
The predictions of warming is based partly on computer models. Problem is if these models are run from a point in the past, they do not predict what climate historically happened. How then can we trust them to show the future?
@Texmurphy51 The point is that the idea that the earth was cooling came from data that one of the deniers had failed to correct properly. You can recalibrate the satellite dat by allowing for the drift in the orbit or by using one of the other three satellites when it drifted into the Noon orbit. Calibrating dat is the very first thing anyone must do. You dont think the satellite data reads out degree C do you? It does not it reads out the flux at a veriety of wavelengths which is converted to T
@drkstrong "Calibrating dat is the very first thing anyone must do."
You know as well as I do that this correction in data was AFTER it was Calibrated.
Any data that does not agree with warming is assumed incorrect. It is then Scientifically bent & twisted to comply. Sometimes its just a coverup like Michigan State University.
YOU assume that only those who get outside funding are unscrupulous, not the Warmers.
Blind Belief has cause Researchers to lie before, hear of Dr. Hwang Woo-suk
@Texmurphy51 I know no such thing. I wonder what source you have to prove it. The National Accademy and Royal society would have been interested in seeing this evideence when they carried out their inquiries. Why didnt you give it to them?
@drkstrong I will send you a link to the Mishigan State incident. You could look it up, called Climatgate. Now I wondered how long it would take for you to ask me to site sources. I will now ask you to do the same for your claims.
For you to say that NO fudging or error in data has happened is BS. There are many incidents of Legit Scientists in research who KNEW their theories were correct & changed data to prove it.
Look at the Himalayan glacier error, or all the fallacies in the Gore movie
The himalayan galcier was a non peer reviewed article being quoted - does not say it is wrong just not peer reviewed. Besides you will not find it in the science section of the IPCC (Working group 1) it is in the WG2 report which was done by engineers and politicians. So that ws not scientists.
An incovenient truth was not done by a scientist - Gore is a politican & journalist. See watch?v=LhuxXkONmgY
@drkstrong If only the IPCC had the zeal to discredit "non scientific" work that agrees with warming as they do with non peer reviewed work against warming.
Everything you have said shows that you have a great bias,Belief, in global warming yet you claim to be on a grant committee. How can you give an objective judgement on grants when you assume Man Made Warming exists? Why didnt the IPCC point out the errors in the Gore movie? Carbon Credits money will dwarf the oil company money.
@Texmurphy51 I see you sidesteped my response on the glaciers. An inconvenient truth, no doubt!
The problem is that the IPCC (WG1) is supposed to only look at peer reviewed work before a certain date (2005 in the case of the FAR) so 1) a movie is not a peer reviewed paper 2) it was screened after the IPCC report was finished. 3) there are very few peer reviewed papers giving the anti case because scientifically there's no case.
Wrong grant committee - I do solar. I just know how they work.
@Texmurphy51 Do you have ATD? You have the WRONG PART of the IPCC. The science is covered in WG1 - oddly callled "The Scientific Basis" - that is the group that is supposed to be using peer reviewed science papers. The thing about Himalaan glaciers was from the WG2 report (Impacts) - mainly engineers, environmentalists, politicans, and biologists who would not know a peer reviewed paper from Adam. Please quote the chapter & page in the WG1 report where it talks about the Himalayan glaciers.
@Texmurphy51 Again you have it wrong "solar" as in heliophysics, solar astrophysics, Sun-earth connection, et al.
PS The science community was up in arms about ethanol - any physicist worth their salt knows that ethanol form corn takes more energy to produce than it releases when burned. The ethanol scam was pushed through by the farming lobby over the objections of the scientists.
@drkstrong I see your very very arrogant. You simply said "solar" then tell me I have it wrong again.
Your statement about ethanol shows the seperation between Gov and reality. We saw nothing in the news but how ethanol was the answer. Ethanol also was pushed thru by the Ecofreaks because they thought it was Green. It got subsidies just like windmills & solar panels.
This proves my point how Gov action overrides Science for money & power. Ethanol continues dispite the facts.
@Texmurphy51 Teh ecofraks that thought that were few and far between and probably as duped as they are about other things. Pay no attention to them but equally dont pay any attention to the shrill voice of the Anti GW lobby either. Read the science journals (Science, nature or those that sumarize them - SciAm and New Scientist) and you wwill be much better served than blogs or slick web sites (including so called "news" services (NPR, PBS, and BBC excepted).
@drkstrong You give too much credit to the intelligence of the Eco Freak community. Tree Huggers created the situation where trees were left to grow unchecked, burned down in mass & destroyed not only the forest but the animals they were trying to protect. What the Gov does is not driven by the Science Journals but Lobbys. If you check companies like GM,(obamas friends) payed not taxes & get subsidies to mfg windmills when they will Never be a factor in our total energy useage.
@drkstrong It is no where near 3% of the US total energy usage. Your not taking into account what energy is used to mfg, install the turbines, or what it will cost in energy to decomission them. Look at countries that have reached a 30% level of wind power (electricity) and see what problems they are having.
@Texmurphy51 My figures are current and refer to generating capacity. Your figures are 3 years out of date and refer to usage. My figures come from the DoE and USEIA.
@drkstrong No your figures are dead WRONG. Yours only look at a portion of the energy usage of the electrical grid, not the entire energy usage of the country.
You are also not taking into account the energy to Mfg & install the wind turbines. A wind turbine needs to run up to 2 years just to pay the energy to create & install it.
I have done the research on this & it would take 3.5 Million of the GE 1.5 Mw wind turbines to replace just our current electric grid, but thats without backup.
@drkstrong I am complaining to you because YOU are the one stating the figures. You are in this discussion with me, not the DOE. You are the one who needs to understand what the data Means.
You just trying to avoid the truth of what I am telling you by changing the argument.
After looking at the sites I sent you perhaps you now understand how little power wind can potentially generate.
There is no way we can replace Fossil Fuel with Wind & solar. Nuclear is the only alternative.
@Texmurphy51 I got my figures from a reputable source (in fact the one that runs LLL (where you got your figures) - Iam not in a dsicussion with LLL. Stalemate! You can replace fossil fuels with a combination of conservation, solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, biomass, and nuclear. Its a matter of commitment - the problem is we dont have any.
@drkstrong I didnt say your figures were wrong, You are misrepresenting them as do most Warmers.
Your figures of 3% apply only to electrical generation, Not Total Energy Usage. Look at the graph I sent you.
I notice you now lumped nuclear into the equation, if it is used you would not need the solar, & wind. Solar & wind have a downside. Each modify the landscape. Significant wind generators change the weather,
@Texmurphy51 "No your figures are dead WRONG" then a little while later "I didnt say your figures were wrong" - i'll leave you to argue amoungst yourself - get back to me when you get your story straight. Nuclear has to be in ther as a stop gap measure - not a permanent solution.
@Texmurphy51 No, some journals have opinion sections. Those are not reviewed. (that is how Moncton claims to have a climate paper published, it was an opinion piece)
Lindzen, Christy, & Douglass have published several papers. But the others have nop scientific evidence to back their case so cant get anything published - they dont try or rig the process by publishing in off topic journals like the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons reviewed by friends.
@Besetho Are you completly retarded?
Why do you think I support Piers Corbyn.
Your statement doesnt even make sence!
MetalHeadViking 1 month ago
How many gullible people still believe the Globull warming myth?
BruceH59 1 year ago 2
CO2 is needed as it consists less that 1% of the atmosphere... That is all.
"contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases." - wiki
WoodlandRavah 1 year ago
Piers Corbyn says that man does not effect climate AT ALL!
Check him out.
MetalHeadViking 1 year ago
@MetalHeadViking
I have heard him; I love eccentric Brits who know what they are
talking about and he is someone who does.
axis4peace3 1 year ago
Lindzen was not THE lead author but A lead author of Chapter 7 of the IPCC TAR there were many lead authors of that chapter.
Odd the models in the early 90s have predicted what is going on now.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong They have HUNDREDS of models running so one of them is bound to hit it correctly. Its like when something happens in the world and they they find it in the Bible.
Recent models after Katrina had predicted many major hurricans, Wrong.
The first Earth Day was all about Global Cooling & the models back then said we were to FREEZE to death due to polution in the atmosphere.
All Research funded is to Find Global Warming, what do you think they will find???
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 I assume you are talking about the 1970's scare about global cooling. The popular press is not the scientific literature - remember all the fuss about cold fusion?
At the time the number of scientific papers about the possibility of global cooling were outnumbered by a margin of 5 to 1 by those about global warming. The ironic thing is that the original global cooling paper said it would happen UNLESS HUMAN INFLUENCES overwhelm the natural trend - why forget to mention that?
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong "All Research funded ... find?"
Wrong again the huge research budget numbers you hear about are inflated. They talk of $3B/y. About 2/3rds of that are huge subsidies disguised as research $s for oil, power, & agribusiness
Of the remaining $1B, most of it goes to aerospace companies to build & operate rockets, satellites and instruments. The remaining $50M - $70M mostly goes to pay for research students. Most climatologists dont get grants, they get paid no matter what they find.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong The press are not scientific but are you saying Al Gore is??
In the 70s the press was reporting Science from people like Carl Sagen, & others. Computer models show it, winters were getting colder and everyone believed it, Just like now. I am sure when the climate starts to cool again the papers & models that are correct will be pointed to as being ignored also. Do you know where the entire Global Warming movement started??
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 No, Al gore was a reporter before he became a politician - i.e., he was the press.
Everyone did not believe it. The press reported the speculation from part of 1 paper and forgot to mention most of the rest. What they did forget to mention was that for every paper speculating on gobal cooling there were 5 science papers support global warming.
Ironically the global cooling result is still valid - for we are heading for another ice age - in about 14,000 years.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong Correct on the ice age but its less than 14K yrs. The argument is over Man Made Warming, warming has happend since the last ice age. The 5:1 papers is a skewed, I have not seen them all but non predict runaway warming but warming until the coming ice age. Its a bogus argument like the so called "97% of climate scientists believe in man made warming"
10,200 scientists were hand picked in 2007, 3146 responded, most were, petroleum geologists, or meteorologists. Few Climate Scientists
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 They were "hand picked" by reuiring them to have published some papers on the climate. Wow, that's a tough criterion to meet for a research climatologist.
Why would they want to include petroleum geologists? They are the ones opposing the AGW theory.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong Any published papers are peer reviewed. Anti Global Warming papers never see the light of day through this process. Do you think any of the AGW climatologiests were on this list? NO.
petroleum geologists are not all AGW as not all climatologists are Warmers dispite what you hear on the news.
The UN reports are not from climatologists but Bureaucrats who speak for them.
Its a scam, look into it deeper.
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 No, some journals have opinion sections. Those are not reviewed. (that is how Moncton claims to have a climate paper published - it was an opinion piece)
Lindzen, Christy, and Douglass have published several papers. But the others have nop scientific evidence to back their case so cant get anything published - they dont try or rig the process by publishing in off topic journals like the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons reviewed by friends.
Look up the UN authors
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong How can one get scientific evidence when all the research is geared to find Warming?
The data was restricted until it was Hacked into the light of day & shown to be modified as well as original data deleted. Since the heads of all the organizations like Hanson are Warming Believers, do you think they will hire somone with a contrary view? How long do you think you would work for NASA or others if you let it be know you question Global Warming?
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 On the contrary the research is into how the climate changes & they discovered that it is warming (about 30 years ago) the research is to find out why (completed 15 years ago).
The data has all been available for years, I have been looking at NOAA NCDC for 10 years
I know at least two people at NASA that question it. You see the thing about government scientist is that you cannot fire them so they can hold & espouse any opinion they want. Thus they are neutral in all this
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong CRU has admitted that ALL,(150years) the "raw data" had been DUMPED. Onlly the "value-added (quality controlled and homogenised data" is available. What your seeing is what they want you to see.
As for Gov scientest being neutral, if they cant be fired they can be moved into an obscure job. As for firing see Dr. James Enstrom's. Scientists that are Gov funded have that funding removed if they do not have the "proper findings" of the mission.
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 It dumped data that it got from other national and international sources that were on paper and 7-track tape; neither of which is readable these days. The same data is available at NOAA NCDC now (go log on and request anything you want - warning they charge a nominal fee for it) or from the original sources. CRU is not a national center so has no obligation to archive or distribute data - that in the UK is Hadley.
Enstrom was not a governemnt scientist he worked for UCLA.
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong Paper tape & 7 track tape not readable??? Bullshit, if your trying to tell me there is no way to read this your dead wrong. All these machines are still in existence so there is no excuse. I again say the data you now refere to has been Modified.
Yes Enstrom was a UCLA scientists who worked for the Government on a project. He was fired for not finding the correct data. This the POINT. Incorrect data leads to firing or Gov workers get moved to obscurity.
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 It is not whether the 7 track or paper tape readers still exist ( they probably do in a mesuem) but whether the tapes were usable. Paper tape readers were already obsoletes when I was a PhD student in the early 70's. We ditched our 7-tracks decks after NASA told us to dispose of all the 7 track tapes in our possession in 1989 because the tapes had decayed to the point of being unreadable.
Because you work on a government contract does not mean you are a government employee.
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong "tapes were usable" Thats a convenient story. Lets see what THEY said.
"tapes were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building"
My question is, why were they numbers "converted" in the first place instead of copying them?
I find it hard to believe that raw data would be left to decay to this point.
Employees like Enstrom must come in with the "proper results" or they will not have their grant renewed.
Results contrary to Warming are not tolerated.
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Because, as I stated before CRU has no obligation to copy, preserve, or distribute data. If they needed to save space what better way than to dump unuseable tapes?
Ask NASA or any other agency where the raw data tapes are for any mission before say 1990.
You obviously understand so little about the grant process. I have served on over 20 grant committees over the years and the process is nothing like you think it is. Dont criticize what you dont understand - it is just foolish
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong They never said the tapes were "unuseable" I am hearing that from you & that is a great after the fact excuse but if they were able to convert them, why not copy them?
Well if you worked on a gran committee then tell me why no grants are given to Scientists who are know Not to believe in Warming? This is like the Tobacco Companies experiments, do you think they will fund & publish experiments to show tobacco causes cancer? Any on the grant committee who dont believe in warming???
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Yes, I am telling you that the life of a 7-track tape was about 10 years - those tapes were useless.
Grants are given to scientists that dont believe in global warming - I know that Spencer, Lindzen, and Christy have won grants int he past. Many of the rest are so rich on oil money they dont need grants or could not qualify (you have to declare your sources of income and % of your time covered by existing sources of funding. If that is 100% then you do not qualify for a grant).
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong If the tape life was 10 years, & they knew it, why just convert the numbers on reading them, but Not save the original numbers? I would think sloppyness like this would carry on into other observations & calculations. Your saying all climate research that is anti warming is funded by the oil companies. Perhaps thats because people like you dont grant them money.
Tell me... how many requests did you get for anti warming research, How many got money???
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 How many times do I have to tell you that the numbers are still available elsewhere - so why would they need to keep a duplicate copy? They are a research group, not a data archive.
On the grants - why dont you read what I type rather than reinterpreting it? I said I know for a fact that several of the most prominent deniers have won research grants. The problem is that if their annual salary is already taken care of (from any other sources) they are inelligible for a fed grant.
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong If the Data numbers are avilable elsewhere then why dont they use them instead of the modified data?
I didnt reinterpret your statement. I asked you a direct question.
Tell me... how many requests did you get for anti warming research, How many got money???
As for salary, you mean to say that all the warmer grants you give are to researchers who have not income? Are they not already employeed in some degree at the University? How does a employed prominant scientest get a grant?
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 They can use those numbers - they choose not to. It would be a lot of work and cost a lot of money to redo the analysis from the start.
I know the deniers got funding because in their papers and presentations you have to put at the end an acknowledgement to the grant awarding body if it is from federal funding. I have seen several such statements.
About 1 in 6 grants are successful.
Grants are awarded to those who do not have a full income up to the amount they are short.
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong sez "Grants are awarded to those who do not have a full income up to the amount they are short"
So that means that anyone should qualify for a grant. Why would anti-warmers turn to oil companies if they could get a grant? I think the reason they seek other funding is that Gov grants are not possible.
Why was the original data not used in the first place instead of the value-added conversion?
Satelite data was also modified because of errors & merged with surface data.
Questionable.
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "So that means that anyone should qualify for a grant." anyone is eligible for a grant but only 1 in 6 win one. So would you be willing to get paid only once in 6 years? The oil company money does not have the same restrictions that the federal granst to. They can (and do) provide 2 or 3 times a person's annual salary.
One denier complained to western fuels that he had run out of money after 6 months and wanted ANOTHER $160K. Thats $320K/year which is 3 times a scientist's salary
drkstrong 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Part II: The original data was used to derive the corrected data - science is littered with examples of scientists using uncorrected data & getting things complete wrong. I had someone use some of my data once & thought he had discovered the source of coronal heating - a 90 min oscillation that was hugely powerful, he hadnt corrected for the 90-min orbital period of the satellite
drkstrong 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Satelite data was also modified because of errors & merged with surface data. Questionable." You make my point perfectly. Christy, a widely respected denier, made a big thing about the satellite data showed the Earth was cooling. He used raw data (OOps!) but it was discovered that he had forgotten that the satellite orbit precesses in time. It started out as a noon orbit (hot) & precessed slowly to a dawn orbit (cool). His error was discovered by Bush's own climate panel!
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong What is your point telling me Christy used raw satelite data to prove cooling, when warmers used THE SAME DATA to prove Warming? (OOps) If the data was incorrect from the start how was Global Warming found before it was discovered the flaw? (OOps).
The predictions of warming is based partly on computer models. Problem is if these models are run from a point in the past, they do not predict what climate historically happened. How then can we trust them to show the future?
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 The point is that the idea that the earth was cooling came from data that one of the deniers had failed to correct properly. You can recalibrate the satellite dat by allowing for the drift in the orbit or by using one of the other three satellites when it drifted into the Noon orbit. Calibrating dat is the very first thing anyone must do. You dont think the satellite data reads out degree C do you? It does not it reads out the flux at a veriety of wavelengths which is converted to T
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong "Calibrating dat is the very first thing anyone must do."
You know as well as I do that this correction in data was AFTER it was Calibrated.
Any data that does not agree with warming is assumed incorrect. It is then Scientifically bent & twisted to comply. Sometimes its just a coverup like Michigan State University.
YOU assume that only those who get outside funding are unscrupulous, not the Warmers.
Blind Belief has cause Researchers to lie before, hear of Dr. Hwang Woo-suk
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 I know no such thing. I wonder what source you have to prove it. The National Accademy and Royal society would have been interested in seeing this evideence when they carried out their inquiries. Why didnt you give it to them?
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong I will send you a link to the Mishigan State incident. You could look it up, called Climatgate. Now I wondered how long it would take for you to ask me to site sources. I will now ask you to do the same for your claims.
For you to say that NO fudging or error in data has happened is BS. There are many incidents of Legit Scientists in research who KNEW their theories were correct & changed data to prove it.
Look at the Himalayan glacier error, or all the fallacies in the Gore movie
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51
The himalayan galcier was a non peer reviewed article being quoted - does not say it is wrong just not peer reviewed. Besides you will not find it in the science section of the IPCC (Working group 1) it is in the WG2 report which was done by engineers and politicians. So that ws not scientists.
An incovenient truth was not done by a scientist - Gore is a politican & journalist. See watch?v=LhuxXkONmgY
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong If only the IPCC had the zeal to discredit "non scientific" work that agrees with warming as they do with non peer reviewed work against warming.
Everything you have said shows that you have a great bias,Belief, in global warming yet you claim to be on a grant committee. How can you give an objective judgement on grants when you assume Man Made Warming exists? Why didnt the IPCC point out the errors in the Gore movie? Carbon Credits money will dwarf the oil company money.
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 I see you sidesteped my response on the glaciers. An inconvenient truth, no doubt!
The problem is that the IPCC (WG1) is supposed to only look at peer reviewed work before a certain date (2005 in the case of the FAR) so 1) a movie is not a peer reviewed paper 2) it was screened after the IPCC report was finished. 3) there are very few peer reviewed papers giving the anti case because scientifically there's no case.
Wrong grant committee - I do solar. I just know how they work.
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong Didnt sidestep anything, I said the IPCC & you are selective in condeming non peer reviewed papers.
As for the IPCC, Glaciergate revealed that the IPCC WAS copying research & passing it off as peer reviewed.
See catallaxyfiles(dot)com/2010/01/22/ipcc-and-peer-review
If your solar then concentrate on algae, conventional panels polute, silicon tetrachloride, & use rare earths.
Ethanol is a bust & should be stopped.
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Do you have ATD? You have the WRONG PART of the IPCC. The science is covered in WG1 - oddly callled "The Scientific Basis" - that is the group that is supposed to be using peer reviewed science papers. The thing about Himalaan glaciers was from the WG2 report (Impacts) - mainly engineers, environmentalists, politicans, and biologists who would not know a peer reviewed paper from Adam. Please quote the chapter & page in the WG1 report where it talks about the Himalayan glaciers.
drkstrong 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Again you have it wrong "solar" as in heliophysics, solar astrophysics, Sun-earth connection, et al.
PS The science community was up in arms about ethanol - any physicist worth their salt knows that ethanol form corn takes more energy to produce than it releases when burned. The ethanol scam was pushed through by the farming lobby over the objections of the scientists.
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong I see your very very arrogant. You simply said "solar" then tell me I have it wrong again.
Your statement about ethanol shows the seperation between Gov and reality. We saw nothing in the news but how ethanol was the answer. Ethanol also was pushed thru by the Ecofreaks because they thought it was Green. It got subsidies just like windmills & solar panels.
This proves my point how Gov action overrides Science for money & power. Ethanol continues dispite the facts.
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Teh ecofraks that thought that were few and far between and probably as duped as they are about other things. Pay no attention to them but equally dont pay any attention to the shrill voice of the Anti GW lobby either. Read the science journals (Science, nature or those that sumarize them - SciAm and New Scientist) and you wwill be much better served than blogs or slick web sites (including so called "news" services (NPR, PBS, and BBC excepted).
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong You give too much credit to the intelligence of the Eco Freak community. Tree Huggers created the situation where trees were left to grow unchecked, burned down in mass & destroyed not only the forest but the animals they were trying to protect. What the Gov does is not driven by the Science Journals but Lobbys. If you check companies like GM,(obamas friends) payed not taxes & get subsidies to mfg windmills when they will Never be a factor in our total energy useage.
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Wind power
10 years ago: 0%
Current level: 3%
Goal: 20%
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong It is no where near 3% of the US total energy usage. Your not taking into account what energy is used to mfg, install the turbines, or what it will cost in energy to decomission them. Look at countries that have reached a 30% level of wind power (electricity) and see what problems they are having.
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Check the figures for yourself
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong I have so since you are too lazy I wil give them to you.
According to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory....
Total Energy useage of the USA in 2008 was 99.2 Quads.
Total Energy generated by Wind Power was .51 Quads
Last time I checked that was nowhere near 3%
First go to ..
wind-watch(dot)org/faq-output(dot)php
Then see..
llnl(dot)gov/news/newsreleases/2010/images/energy-flow-annotated(dot)pdf
Educate yourself a little before making stupid comments
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 My figures are current and refer to generating capacity. Your figures are 3 years out of date and refer to usage. My figures come from the DoE and USEIA.
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong No your figures are dead WRONG. Yours only look at a portion of the energy usage of the electrical grid, not the entire energy usage of the country.
You are also not taking into account the energy to Mfg & install the wind turbines. A wind turbine needs to run up to 2 years just to pay the energy to create & install it.
I have done the research on this & it would take 3.5 Million of the GE 1.5 Mw wind turbines to replace just our current electric grid, but thats without backup.
Texmurphy51 10 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Dopnt complain to me compalin to the DOE
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong I am complaining to you because YOU are the one stating the figures. You are in this discussion with me, not the DOE. You are the one who needs to understand what the data Means.
You just trying to avoid the truth of what I am telling you by changing the argument.
After looking at the sites I sent you perhaps you now understand how little power wind can potentially generate.
There is no way we can replace Fossil Fuel with Wind & solar. Nuclear is the only alternative.
Texmurphy51 10 months ago
@Texmurphy51 I got my figures from a reputable source (in fact the one that runs LLL (where you got your figures) - Iam not in a dsicussion with LLL. Stalemate! You can replace fossil fuels with a combination of conservation, solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, biomass, and nuclear. Its a matter of commitment - the problem is we dont have any.
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong I didnt say your figures were wrong, You are misrepresenting them as do most Warmers.
Your figures of 3% apply only to electrical generation, Not Total Energy Usage. Look at the graph I sent you.
I notice you now lumped nuclear into the equation, if it is used you would not need the solar, & wind. Solar & wind have a downside. Each modify the landscape. Significant wind generators change the weather,
Your 3% claim is highly misleading.
Texmurphy51 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Texmurphy51 "No your figures are dead WRONG" then a little while later "I didnt say your figures were wrong" - i'll leave you to argue amoungst yourself - get back to me when you get your story straight. Nuclear has to be in ther as a stop gap measure - not a permanent solution.
drkstrong 10 months ago
@Texmurphy51 No, some journals have opinion sections. Those are not reviewed. (that is how Moncton claims to have a climate paper published, it was an opinion piece)
Lindzen, Christy, & Douglass have published several papers. But the others have nop scientific evidence to back their case so cant get anything published - they dont try or rig the process by publishing in off topic journals like the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons reviewed by friends.
Look up the UN authors
drkstrong 11 months ago