Got to agree with chris on a waste of a perfectly good reef tech blog. I’ll go elswhere to read about reef related stuff. Can only hope that the rest of “uneducated, Walmart shopping masses” do the same…

Ok JMB, same time next week…

This is about the primary group of data collectors who gave us most of the concept (AGW) being exposed as frauds.
if the data the whole concept based on is suspect then the average layperson does not know what to believe.
There is to much junk science that we already know to be false, so what is the real deal? I am not denying there is bad stuff happening on this planet but we do not want to sold more directions that prove to be not helpful.

Most of the people who are defending against so called climate gate seem to all be quoting from the same data that is now lost. So they are still suspect. Anyone who blindly accepts the “science we have been told is real” now that they lost the data (how convenient) is like the people who believed the earth was flat. Lets see some data that can backed up by open shared groups of researchers who don’t have political agenda.

I truly believe we want to do the right thing but what is that (see posts about hybrids and cf bulbs).

Ok eric here is where you jump the tracks

You Say “About 2-5% of the scientists are not on board” yet we know that the so called majority has suppressed any data that did not support the AGW Theory. so that Number is tainted because the AGW mafia has made anyone who does not go along a pariah. In the current environment if you don’t agree you can’t get published, Read the emails They talk openly about suppression of all who don’t agree, and the suppression of all data or worse the tricking of their own data when it does not support the theory.

You also say “One cannot expect the average person to have access to, read, understand, or critique overwhelming consensus of a diverse global scientific community” well I am not the average person. but one thing I do understand is the people who are behind the original findings that AGW comes have admitted to lying, data adjustment (more Lying), suppression of all who don’t agree (scaring others into lying) and now losing all of the data so they can’t be proven as liars

The very data that eric uses in his article comes from the pool of data that was lost and can’t be backed up with proof.

This thread is not about denying global warming, It is about wanting to know truth (that can be backed up with real data)

Do we all ride bikes?
Do all have the AC removed from our homes?
Do we sterilize all of the people who have more than 2 kids while some groups in the world breed at 8.1 children per family?
Do we just decide to limit population at any cost?
Do we kill all the cows , stop everybody from eating meat?
Do ruin our economy by raising the bar of cap and trade while India, Mexico and China do nothing but pollute and take business away from our companies? And create more pollution because they take our manufacturing and do it without controls we have already.

we want real data so we make difference not more junk science

This is about the primary group of data collectors who gave us most of the concept (AGW) being exposed as frauds.
if the data the whole concept based on is suspect then the average layperson does not know what to believe.
There is to much junk science that we already know to be false, so what is the real deal? I am not denying there is bad stuff happening on this planet but we do not want to sold more directions that prove to be not helpful.

Most of the people who are defending against so called climate gate seem to all be quoting from the same data that is now lost. So they are still suspect. Anyone who blindly accepts the “science we have been told is real” now that they lost the data (how convenient) is like the people who believed the earth was flat. Lets see some data that can backed up by open shared groups of researchers who don’t have political agenda.

I truly believe we want to do the right thing but what is that (see posts about hybrids and cf bulbs).

Ok eric here is where you jump the tracks

You Say “About 2-5% of the scientists are not on board” yet we know that the so called majority has suppressed any data that did not support the AGW Theory. so that Number is tainted because the AGW mafia has made anyone who does not go along a pariah. In the current environment if you don’t agree you can’t get published, Read the emails They talk openly about suppression of all who don’t agree, and the suppression of all data or worse the tricking of their own data when it does not support the theory.

You also say “One cannot expect the average person to have access to, read, understand, or critique overwhelming consensus of a diverse global scientific community” well I am not the average person. but one thing I do understand is the people who are behind the original findings that AGW comes have admitted to lying, data adjustment (more Lying), suppression of all who don’t agree (scaring others into lying) and now losing all of the data so they can’t be proven as liars

The very data that eric uses in his article comes from the pool of data that was lost and can’t be backed up with proof.

This thread is not about denying global warming, It is about wanting to know truth (that can be backed up with real data)

Do we all ride bikes?
Do all have the AC removed from our homes?
Do we sterilize all of the people who have more than 2 kids while some groups in the world breed at 8.1 children per family?
Do we just decide to limit population at any cost?
Do we kill all the cows , stop everybody from eating meat?
Do ruin our economy by raising the bar of cap and trade while India, Mexico and China do nothing but pollute and take business away from our companies? And create more pollution because they take our manufacturing and do it without controls we have already.

we want real data so we make difference not more junk science

That was quite a rant.

As obnoxious as it sounds your education level is not sufficient to debate this topic when most of these issues were already touch on in original post.

There is no ‘We’ in ‘me and my wallet’.

@ Nathan G

Bullshit. Do your homework. Climategate is a NON-story. There was no suppression of the peer review process, but rather a strong consensus against a crappy journal for publishing BAD SCIENCE.

@ Nathan G

Bullshit. Do your homework. Climategate is a NON-story. There was no suppression of the peer review process, but rather a strong consensus against a crappy journal for publishing BAD SCIENCE.

Isn’t this what the global warming debate is actually all about?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_itPEoTvu3wg/Syo-gKFiYlI/AAAAAAAABFw/r5cxmHDAjaE/s400/091207usatC.slideshow_main.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

chris & Jmb – I don’t understand why you would fault this website for bringing a wide range of topics to the attention of its users for discussion. Isn’t that what this whole thing is about? And honestly, if you don’t see how issues relating to climate impact the world’s reefs, and subsequently our hobby, than you just haven’t been paying attention.

chris & Jmb – I don’t understand why you would fault this website for bringing a wide range of topics to the attention of its users for discussion. Isn’t that what this whole thing is about? And honestly, if you don’t see how issues relating to climate impact the world’s reefs, and subsequently our hobby, than you just haven’t been paying attention.

If you can find a reef news site that doesn’t report on climate change. As far as I know they all do.

Nathan G
“This thread is not about denying global warming, It is about wanting to know truth (that can be backed up with real data) ”

This thread is about scientifically illiterates denying global warming with straw man arguments given to them lay media personalities. Please reread the article more carefully.

Nathan G
“This thread is not about denying global warming, It is about wanting to know truth (that can be backed up with real data) ”

This thread is about scientifically illiterates denying global warming with straw man arguments given to them lay media personalities. Please reread the article more carefully.

well I am late getting here. I am/was a fan of Eric but after that article I think (by his description) I am to stupid to be a fan of Erics.

This global warming thing in my opinion is just another way for people to get in my pocket!
Every solution involves sending my money somewhere else to make some hack like al Gore rich with his Carbon Credit trading scam.
REDISTRIBUTION of WEALTH and creating a new world order is what this is all about. When people stop presenting solutions that are not taxes or redistribution of wealth I MIGHT lend an ear to them.
When every aspect of your life is controlled and you have buy permits or pay a tax to even go to the bathroom, you global Warming supporters might start to realize it was you who ruined the quality of life for everyone.

Global warming is nonsense and all of you are being played like a fiddle!

I wish you all well after you are answering to some dictator who will tax you for driving to many miles or for setting your thermostat to high or low.

Its all about control, Power, Money and getting rid of capitalism.

But what do I know….I am just toothless walmart shopping guy who like fish tanks.

As an auditor I am generally very interested in fraud. One of the curious aspects of human behavior is everyone likes to trust other people, because trusting other people makes us feel good about ourselves. People who commit fraud prey on this predeliction. People who commit fraud also hate being scrutenized, period. That is why auditors, try to traced assertions back to source documents. It very much sounds like anytime the conclusion is questioned, name calling ensues. All attempts to “audit” the source information have been blocked, by claiming the “auditor’s” are too stupid to understand, and there is no need for any additional review. The conclusion the author draws about Global Warming may be right, but due to the protective and inflametory nature of the defense, it smells of fraud. The easiest way to convince someone of validity and veracity of the arguments is to open the books and patiently explain the scientific method. If the inquiring mind is too stupid to grasp the heady logic consistently, could it be that the scientist is a fool? If there truely is a method to the madness, without a bias, then the source information will support the theory. Financial statements are audited by independent auditors, government officials, investors and market pundits, in excruciating detail, and yet fraud still exists, but we are suppose to accept the word of people who have much to gain based on the outcome, because they said they did the work. Follow the money. ALL research is funded by someone. Who funded the 95% of scientists who agree with Global warming? There were disparaging comments made by the author about the scientists who accepted private sector money, but people who accept government money are not prone to exageration or fraud? My understanding of science was that it welcomed discent and discussion and open minds, but on the issue of global warming, bias, name calling and threats of the extintion of the planet are appear to be the highest level of thought exhibited by the experts. Global warming is fact, unless you look at the temperature outside. How many models have correctly predicted the past ten years of climate change?

As an auditor I am generally very interested in fraud. One of the curious aspects of human behavior is everyone likes to trust other people, because trusting other people makes us feel good about ourselves. People who commit fraud prey on this predeliction. People who commit fraud also hate being scrutenized, period. That is why auditors, try to traced assertions back to source documents. It very much sounds like anytime the conclusion is questioned, name calling ensues. All attempts to “audit” the source information have been blocked, by claiming the “auditor’s” are too stupid to understand, and there is no need for any additional review. The conclusion the author draws about Global Warming may be right, but due to the protective and inflametory nature of the defense, it smells of fraud. The easiest way to convince someone of validity and veracity of the arguments is to open the books and patiently explain the scientific method. If the inquiring mind is too stupid to grasp the heady logic consistently, could it be that the scientist is a fool? If there truely is a method to the madness, without a bias, then the source information will support the theory. Financial statements are audited by independent auditors, government officials, investors and market pundits, in excruciating detail, and yet fraud still exists, but we are suppose to accept the word of people who have much to gain based on the outcome, because they said they did the work. Follow the money. ALL research is funded by someone. Who funded the 95% of scientists who agree with Global warming? There were disparaging comments made by the author about the scientists who accepted private sector money, but people who accept government money are not prone to exageration or fraud? My understanding of science was that it welcomed discent and discussion and open minds, but on the issue of global warming, bias, name calling and threats of the extintion of the planet are appear to be the highest level of thought exhibited by the experts. Global warming is fact, unless you look at the temperature outside. How many models have correctly predicted the past ten years of climate change?