General AGW discussion thread

[Strange]

...Phil Jones in testimony before MPs on the Science and Technology Committee...

Provide evidence please.

You can read the proceedings here: http://www.publications.parliament.u...-i/uc38702.htm

I heard some of it on the radio and skimmed through the text. He describes what information (data and methodologies) was released and what wasn't (and why).

ETA: hope tusenfem doesn't object to this source, but it is the official verbatim report on the statements made by the "witness" in question ...

[tusenfem]

I'm sorry, Tus, mod in red in all, but our media takes fairly good (not great, but good) strides to ensure accuracy.

As such, they're up for discussion, good or bad.

If you'd rather BAUT become a highly-sterilized non-media and non-user environment, so be it.

I've yet to see the one without the other, though.

I am sorry but those were the extra rules that were put into this thread.
Secondly, you are long enough here to know you need to report this if you do not agree with the moderation, and therefore this warrants an infraction.

No press releases
No blogs
No newspapers

This is about the science in AGW and not about whatever someone writes down.

Stick to the real science, be it "sterile" or not.

[buzgz]

You didn't provide an answer to this.


You didn't do this either (providing something for one claim out of many doesn't quite cut it).

But perhaps we need to be more specific because it seems that each claim one has to ask for evidence separately. Why don't you give the evidence already when you make the claims?


dmr81 has already asked you the details on this but you have ignored that. I would like to see you support this claim by evidence. You claim this as a fact so you of course should have the evidence. What papers have they blocked from publication and how they did it?


How is this supposed to work when the editor is the one who sends the papers to the referees? Show us your evidence about this. Particularly, show us that it was "in many cases".


Back this up with evidence, don't forget to show that it was "in many cases".


Provide proof of this claim, show us especially that it was a routine.

By the way, it is common in other sciences too (astronomy for example) that not all the data and methods are presented with the journal publications.


How did they do it? Provide evidence please.


Provide evidence please.


GISS provides full data and methodology. Back this up with real science instead of opinion pieces please.


Ahh, so all your information comes from blogs... It might do you good to actually read some scientific publications. As the rules in this thread quite clearly suggest that we should concentrate on the science, why are you then feeding us this conspiracy nonsense?

All of these questions seem to come from my post #3493. Clearly, I have stated and claimed more in this post than I can support with peer reviewed literature.

I withdraw post #3493 in it's entirety, including all claims and statements.

I knew the rules of this thread when I made the post and I overstepped those rules. For this I apologize to you, to dmr81 and to all other thread members.

[Atraveller]

Please, NO newspapers etc.

Sorry Tusenfem, I thought the article gave an interesting perspective to the debate in this thread - especially the second quote - I'll withdraw the post if you wish.

[Atraveller]

New Global Warming art from NASA (as of Feb 23 2010 - but I don't see that anyone has posted it yet.)

1880 to 2009 temperature

Graphic temp rise by area - decade

[Swift]

This is to let the membership know that on or about March 14, we will begin a temporary moratorium on Global Warming discussions. We expect this will last about a week, but it might be longer. During this time, this thread, and any other current ones on Global Warming will be closed, and we will close any new ones that are opened.

The purpose of this is for a major review of the Forum's policy on this topic. The Moderation Team has been working on this for a while, and we feel we will need a "quiet time" while we work through some issues. We are not implementing this moratorium immediately, in case anyone has a couple of last minute things they need to post.

Please remember that the current rules still apply until the shutdown; in particular posts need to avoid politics and need to reference only scientific publications (no blogs, etc.).

[TheHalcyonYear]

I think it would be most interesting indeed to if it were to end up that one could not defend the idea that global warming was not occurring, or that such defense was limited to ATM threads, and to later see the evidence begin to stack up behind this view.

[mugaliens]

I think it would be most interesting indeed to if it were to end up that one could not defend the idea that global warming was not occurring, or that such defense was limited to ATM threads, and to later see the evidence begin to stack up behind this view.

It appears this is where this is headed. Despite the unmistakeable evidence (in my mind, at least) that GW is happening, I've twice been supended on this forum for my opposing anthropogenic GW as an issue.

Whatever. BAUT is developing a serious history of banning any and every controversial topic and thereby ultra-streamlining themselves into the extremely rarified strata of "the few of us who are left agree on everything - we have won!"

I've seen this sort of self-retraction happen several times on other BBS before, and it's such an unbelievable waste of otherwise outstanding academic/intellectual resources.

At this late stage, I no longer belive BAUT is able to shuck the mantle and pull their program out of the fire.

Who knows? They may surprise me, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Argos]

in particular posts need (...) to reference only scientific publications (no blogs, etc.).

Since scientific magazines charge for content, it is going be hard to reference them in a useful fashion [besides, there are very good, knowledgeable blogs out there].

[Webbo]

How ironic that this topic is subject to a policy decision.

[Swift]

Well, for those of you unhappy about the moderation, I'm about to give you a little more fodder.

No more discussion about how BAUT does or does not moderate Global Warming (or will in the future). This thread is for discussing Global Warming, not the metadiscussion of how it is done. If you wish to start such a discussion in Feedback, you may do so.

And just so its clear, that's the final warning on this. The next violation gets an infraction.

[JESMKS]

The title of this thread is "General AGW discussion thread." Is the discussion to be restricted to only AGW or to global warming from all causes?

[Swift]

The title of this thread is "General AGW discussion thread." Is the discussion to be restricted to only AGW or to global warming from all causes?

It is titled that way, but it hasn't particularly worked that way. At least for the next several days, I think other causes are fine (certainly, people have posted other causes as a counter to AGW).

If you were going to talk, for example, about Global Warming on Venus, I would take it to a new thread.

[nimbus2506]

Since scientific magazines charge for content, it is going be hard to reference them in a useful fashion [besides, there are very good, knowledgeable blogs out there].

Not necessarily, there are various scientists who, while publish, host particular papers on university websites, personal or other websites and their are also other individuals who host those papers on their own websites.

The easiest way to find these papers is by using google scholar.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar...001&as_sdtp=on

The link above is a good start but for more particular issues you should refine your search.

As you can read from the majority of the posts (since the new rules), regular members have posted in a way that links the paper to the pdf, the common format that it is in.