Over 90% of worldwide scientists accept climate change, so why not Americans?

[ArcticGranite]

dude, every single person that signed onto that letter was funded by the koch brothers, exxonmobil, a chrstian creationist, or otherwise not qualified to comment on the issue.

you just proved the failings of the denial side.

You and I- we're not reaching consensus on this issue. Happy New Year, enjoy a cocktail.

 

[UncleBuck]

thats why you take the time go go read the bits that "wattsupwiththat" so charmingly edited out as they completely followed EPA protocol

"EPA’s peer review policy states that “for influential scientific information
intended to support important decisions, or for work products that have special importance in
their own right, external peer review is the approach of choice” and that “for highly influential
scientific assessments, external peer review is the expected procedure.” According to the policy,
external peer review involves reviewers who are “independent experts from outside EPA.”"

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e0584e33-d3da-4fba-b95a-e93548105e09

its so easy to be folled when you dont bother checking yourself

boom goes the dynamite.

why is there no climatedenialgate about this misleading presentation by people who are funded by the koch brothers and exxonmobil?!?

seems like the indignation and anger only goes in one direction. that's either a double standard or manufactured ignorance.

 

[ginjawarrior]

boom goes the dynamite.

why is there no climatedenialgate about this misleading presentation by people who are funded by the koch brothers and exxonmobil?!?

seems like the indignation and anger only goes in one direction. that's either a double standard or manufactured ignorance.

well i certainly get angry at these idiots who are set on keeping our climate circling round the drain hole

but theres more than enough evidence of what i believe for me to show to waste too much time pointing and laughing at their very poor sources

 

[ArcticGranite]

Ginja that statement from the IG is supporting the claim challenged by that open letter.

Also included in that letter is a link to Dr. Christy's letter to Senate EPW. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=66585975-a507-4d81-b750-def3ec74913d
It is a lengthy but easy read. He was an IPCC contributor. It's just another answer to Pad's question as to why Americans aren't buying AGW. Cheers.

 

[echelon1k1]

boom goes the dynamite.

why is there no climatedenialgate about this misleading presentation by people who are funded by the koch brothers and exxonmobil?!?

seems like the indignation and anger only goes in one direction. that's either a double standard or manufactured ignorance.

How much money did Obama take during the last two campaigns from the oil industry?

Since Exxon (PAC & Staff) funded him would that mean everything he says is misleading?

 

[ginjawarrior]

Ginja that statement from the IG is supporting the claim challenged by that open letter.

Also included in that letter is a link to Dr. Christy's letter to Senate EPW. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=66585975-a507-4d81-b750-def3ec74913d
It is a lengthy but easy read. He was an IPCC contributor. It's just another answer to Pad's question as to why Americans aren't buying AGW. Cheers.

whattsupwith that quote

“EPA did not conduct a peer review of the TSD [Technical Support Document] that met all recommended steps in the Peer Review Handbook for peer reviews of influential scientific information or highly influential scientific assessments. {—} The handbook provides examples of ‘independent experts from outside EPA,’ that include NAS, an established Federal Advisory Committee Act mechanism (e.g., Science Advisory Board), and an ad hoc panel of independent experts outside the Agency.”

direct quote (edited by me whatsupwiththat bolded)

EPA did not conduct a peer review of the TSD that met all recommended steps in the Peer
Review Handbook for peer reviews of influential scientific information or highly influential
scientific assessments. EPA’s peer review policy states that “for influential scientific information
intended to support important decisions, or for work products that have special importance in
their own right, external peer review is the approach of choice” and that “for highly influential
scientific assessments, external peer review is the expected procedure.” According to the policy,
external peer review involves reviewers who are “independent experts from outside EPA.” The
handbook provides examples of “independent experts from outside EPA,” that include NAS, an
established Federal Advisory Committee Act mechanism (e.g., Science Advisory Board), and an
ad hoc panel of independent experts outside the Agency. The handbook lays out a number of
procedural steps involved in an external peer review.

notice how they tell a different story?

 

[ginjawarrior]

partisan hack hey? Fitting description of the obama brigade.

Ben Santer. Maurice Strong's scientific butt buddy. Both global warming proponents.

Santer inplicated in TWO data falsifications, both while at UEA. Like a decade apart.

No such thing as coincedences.

http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf

Composition of the Investigatory Committee:
Sarah M. Assmann, Waller Professor
Department of Biology
Welford Castleman, Evan Pugh Professor and Eberly Distinguished Chair in Science
Department of Chemistry and Depmtment of Physics
Mary Jane Irwin, Evan Pugh Professor
Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering
Nina G. Jablonski, Department Head and Professor
Department of Anthropology
Fred W. Vondracek, Professor
Department of Human Development and Family Studies

thats the list of investigators from the first link alone

cannot see any of the names you listed in that bunch

going to need a hell of alot more handwaving for you to get this one to go away

How much money did Obama take during the last two campaigns from the oil industry?

Since Exxon (PAC & Staff) funded him would that mean everything he says is misleading?

woo hoo over here!!!

havent seen you hand wave over this list of names yet or even i guess address it

heres a good link for you

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/integrity

 

[UncleBuck]

You and I- we're not reaching consensus on this issue. Happy New Year, enjoy a cocktail.

well, that may be because you are informing yourself on the issue via koch-funded and exxonmobil-funded groups whereas i simply defer to the vast majority of publishing, peer reviewed climatologists who have an overwhelming consensus.

i had to slow down on the tequila.

 

[UncleBuck]

How much money did Obama take during the last two campaigns from the oil industry?

Since Exxon (PAC & Staff) funded him would that mean everything he says is misleading?

no, they're just hedging their bets.

 

[echelon1k1]

http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf



thats the list of investigators from the first link alone

cannot see any of the names you listed in that bunch

going to need a hell of alot more handwaving for you to get this one to go away

Michael Mann has made over $2m in grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Michael Mann's Climate Stimulus

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/penn-states-handling-of-mann-investigation-fails-to-satisfy-students-community-members-84012802.html

 

[ginjawarrior]

Michael Mann has made over $2m in grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Michael Mann's Climate Stimulus

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/penn-states-handling-of-mann-investigation-fails-to-satisfy-students-community-members-84012802.html

annnnnd his name isnt in the list of investigators either

 

[echelon1k1]

annnnnd his name isnt in the list of investigators either

Vested financial interests coupled with a flawed investigation... I'm not going to address evey panel member.

If the shoe fits...

 

[ginjawarrior]

Vested financial interests coupled with a flawed investigation... I'm not going to address evey panel member.

If the shoe fits...

right so you you think first one doesnt count becuase of "vested interests"

lets not look into the fact that they put their career/ credentials on the line with this

what about the other 6 separate investigations that all come to the same conclusion

 

[echelon1k1]

right so you you think first one doesnt count becuase of "vested interests"

lets not look into the fact that they put their career/ credentials on the line with this

what about the other 6 separate investigations that all come to the same conclusion

Name one person that is a qualified investigator in any of the 6 links, whos testimony on the integrity of the investigative process would stand up in a court of law?

You show a list of "investigations" that seek to vindicate a compromised scientific study that is based on concensus, muddying the waters of an already politicised subject with powerfull financial interests (both sides) waiting in the wings to seize any oppurtunity of financial gain.

Any credibility these scientists started with has been long eroded by their own doing.

 

[ArcticGranite]

I'll stand pat with the EPA Inspector General's quote. The IG acknowledges his own agencies shortcomings in following procedure. Further he's suggested an even more rigorous process. Pretty plain and simple. Maybe you agree with the finding that CO2 is a pollutant?
EPA’s own Inspector General stated as follows:

“EPA did not conduct a peer review of the TSD [Technical Support Document] that met all recommended steps in the Peer Review Handbook..."
"However, with what is known now, it certainly seems that a new Endangerment Finding analysis is required, using, for example, the far more rigorous Science Advisory Board process suggested by EPA’s Inspector General. "
Regardless, the gem in this article is the Senate Testimony submitted by Dr. Christy.
"Widely publicized consensus reports by “thousands” of scientists are misrepresentative
of climate science, containing overstated confidence in their assertions of high climate
sensitivity. They rarely represent the range of scientific opinion that attends our
relatively murky field of climate research."
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=66585975-a507-4d81-b750-def3ec74913d

 

[ArcticGranite]

Michael Mann has made over $2m in grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Michael Mann's Climate Stimulus

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/penn-states-handling-of-mann-investigation-fails-to-satisfy-students-community-members-84012802.html

He breaks a lot of hockey sticks

 

[echelon1k1]

I'll stand pat with the EPA Inspector General's quote. The IG acknowledges his own agencies shortcomings in following procedure. Further he's suggested an even more rigorous process. Pretty plain and simple. Maybe you agree with the finding that CO2 is a pollutant?
EPA’s own Inspector General stated as follows:

“EPA did not conduct a peer review of the TSD [Technical Support Document] that met all recommended steps in the Peer Review Handbook..."
"However, with what is known now, it certainly seems that a new Endangerment Finding analysis is required, using, for example, the far more rigorous Science Advisory Board process suggested by EPA’s Inspector General. "
Regardless, the gem in this article is the Senate Testimony submitted by Dr. Christy.
"Widely publicized consensus reports by “thousands” of scientists are misrepresentative
of climate science, containing overstated confidence in their assertions of high climate
sensitivity. They rarely represent the range of scientific opinion that attends our
relatively murky field of climate research."
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=66585975-a507-4d81-b750-def3ec74913d

Cheers for the link AG...

The term “consensus science” will often be appealed to regarding arguments about
climate change to bolster an assertion. This is a form of “argument from authority.”
Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion. As I testified to the
Inter-Academy Council in June 2010, wrote in Nature that same year (Christy 2010), and
documented in my written House Testimony last year (House Space, Science and
Technology, 31 Mar 2011) the IPCC and other similar Assessments do not represent for
me a consensus of much more than the consensus of those selected to agree with a
particular consensus. The content of these climate reports is actually under the control of
a relatively small number of individuals - I often refer to them as the “climate
establishment” – who through the years, in my opinion, came to act as gatekeepers of
scientific opinion and information, rather than brokers.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I'll stand pat with the EPA Inspector General's quote. The IG acknowledges his own agencies shortcomings in following procedure. Further he's suggested an even more rigorous process. Pretty plain and simple. Maybe you agree with the finding that CO2 is a pollutant?
EPA’s own Inspector General stated as follows:

“EPA did not conduct a peer review of the TSD [Technical Support Document] that met all recommended steps in the Peer Review Handbook..."
"However, with what is known now, it certainly seems that a new Endangerment Finding analysis is required, using, for example, the far more rigorous Science Advisory Board process suggested by EPA’s Inspector General. "
Regardless, the gem in this article is the Senate Testimony submitted by Dr. Christy.
"Widely publicized consensus reports by “thousands” of scientists are misrepresentative
of climate science, containing overstated confidence in their assertions of high climate
sensitivity. They rarely represent the range of scientific opinion that attends our
relatively murky field of climate research."
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=66585975-a507-4d81-b750-def3ec74913d

first bolded is quoted from ig

the second isnt a quote from it

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=66585975-a507-4d81-b750-def3ec74913d

go search it

 

[ArcticGranite]

Cheers for the link AG...

The term “consensus science” will often be appealed to regarding arguments about
climate change to bolster an assertion. This is a form of “argument from authority.”
Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion. As I testified to the
Inter-Academy Council in June 2010, wrote in Nature that same year (Christy 2010), and
documented in my written House Testimony last year (House Space, Science and
Technology, 31 Mar 2011) the IPCC and other similar Assessments do not represent for
me a consensus of much more than the consensus of those selected to agree with a
particular consensus. The content of these climate reports is actually under the control of
a relatively small number of individuals - I often refer to them as the “climate
establishment” – who through the years, in my opinion, came to act as gatekeepers of
scientific opinion and information, rather than brokers.

Sadly, this info doesn't have impact. It's not politically driven, has no traction with water walkers.

 

[UncleBuck]

He breaks a lot of hockey sticks

dude, you just tried to pass off a koch brothers and exxonmobil funded petition that was co-signed by christians who deny evolution.

you kind of lost all credibility here.