Comments on: Hiding the Decline http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/archives/481 Living close enough to the edge to matter... Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:41:31 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Chris L. http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/archives/481/comment-page-1#comment-95567 Chris L. Mon, 28 Dec 2009 05:55:04 +0000 http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/?p=481#comment-95567 Davey, The fix has been in for some time. The Climategate documents are not just "a few emails". The emails, themselves, confirm a pattern of institutionalized "confirmation bias" and "diagnosis bias" that has been going on for some time. The raw data and program code, though, are the most damning, as they show how weak the "evidence" truly is. This has called into question data from a number of other sites, and has also shown the use of "cherry-picking" beyond just the tree ring data, and more widespread than just the East Anglia CRU. For a better view of the emails, you might read <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/23/the-climategate-timeline-30-years-visualized/" rel="nofollow">this</a>. Additionally, the <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/" rel="nofollow">Watts Up With That</a> blog, compiled by climate scientist Anthony Watts, along with other scientific contributors, has done an excellent job showing the fraud behind the "science" of global warming. Davey,

The fix has been in for some time. The Climategate documents are not just “a few emails”. The emails, themselves, confirm a pattern of institutionalized “confirmation bias” and “diagnosis bias” that has been going on for some time. The raw data and program code, though, are the most damning, as they show how weak the “evidence” truly is. This has called into question data from a number of other sites, and has also shown the use of “cherry-picking” beyond just the tree ring data, and more widespread than just the East Anglia CRU.

For a better view of the emails, you might read this. Additionally, the Watts Up With That blog, compiled by climate scientist Anthony Watts, along with other scientific contributors, has done an excellent job showing the fraud behind the “science” of global warming.

]]> By: Davey http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/archives/481/comment-page-1#comment-95357 Davey Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:20:26 +0000 http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/?p=481#comment-95357 This may shed a little more light than a couple of links to (what I thought) amature and heavily biased blog updates. http://factcheck.org/2009/12/palin-vs-gore-climate-showdown/ This may shed a little more light than a couple of links to (what I thought) amature and heavily biased blog updates.

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/palin-vs-gore-climate-showdown/

]]> By: Davey http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/archives/481/comment-page-1#comment-95355 Davey Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:11:27 +0000 http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/?p=481#comment-95355 I must take issue with your quickly drawn and frankly, self-confirming conclusions re a few emails (that opponents of the global warming theory are desperately trying to label "evidence") written by a few biased or frustrated members of the climate change field. I, in all honestly, believe that nothing has been changed or proven one way or the other in the wake of these communications between contemporaries, just as the banter, ridicule, and questioning of intelligence aimed at supporters of global warming by opponents proves nothing scientific. You can find those in any given field of study that will gladly pull the debate down to the school yard level. That does not do anything to the actual science, either confirming or denying the claim. To draw larger conclusions than actual evidence allows only makes those who oppose the idea of man-made global warming look desperate and unable to engage in rational evaluation of the topic--and--it makes those who show reluctance to discuss other possibilities or questions of a widely held theory look insecure in their own conclusions; but little more. I must take issue with your quickly drawn and frankly, self-confirming conclusions re a few emails (that opponents of the global warming theory are desperately trying to label “evidence”) written by a few biased or frustrated members of the climate change field. I, in all honestly, believe that nothing has been changed or proven one way or the other in the wake of these communications between contemporaries, just as the banter, ridicule, and questioning of intelligence aimed at supporters of global warming by opponents proves nothing scientific. You can find those in any given field of study that will gladly pull the debate down to the school yard level. That does not do anything to the actual science, either confirming or denying the claim. To draw larger conclusions than actual evidence allows only makes those who oppose the idea of man-made global warming look desperate and unable to engage in rational evaluation of the topic–and–it makes those who show reluctance to discuss other possibilities or questions of a widely held theory look insecure in their own conclusions; but little more.

]]> By: Brendt Waters http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/archives/481/comment-page-1#comment-94106 Brendt Waters Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:12:28 +0000 http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/?p=481#comment-94106 Makes ya wonder if the creators of "Not Evil, Just Wrong" need to re-think their title. ;-) Makes ya wonder if the creators of “Not Evil, Just Wrong” need to re-think their title. ;-)

]]>