Gray Literature or Bilge

Oh, no! What will Ed Begley Jr do?

Robo papers

The Role of Mariette DiChristina (editor in chief; Scientific America) in Global Warming Consensus

The Voodoo of a AGW “Consensus” is measured by the published (peer reviewed) scientific body “For and Against AGW” . These turds control what is published across most publications. (Jones & Mann helped eliminate publication)

Per: Naomi Oreskes's paper in support of AGW
They use this Voodoo gangster measure to claim a Consensus regardless of the number of Scientists who opppose AGW.. (Their opinions are not published or peer reviewed) They are gaming Science, a fraud, fixed by robo publishing

Who are They:
[Quote]Since its founding in 1982, SHERP has produced more than 300 graduates who now hold leadership positions in print, television, radio and web journalism in the U.S. and more than 20 other countries. The program's alumni have diverse backgrounds and beliefs and work in many different types of media.

What unites them is a deep conviction that science is far too important to be left only to scientists. Utilizing their SHERP training, they have dedicated their professional lives to covering science, health and environmental issues with precision, subtlety and passion.

The stories SHERP students produce for their classes are of such high quality that every year some students are able to place them in professional publications.[/quote]

http://journalism.nyu.edu/sherp/
Mariette DiChristina, who teaches advanced science writing in the Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program, joined Scientific American as executive editor in April 2001. She also runs the bimonthly Scientific American Mind and manages Scientific American’s quarterly newsstand special editions. Previously, she was executive editor of Popular Science, where she worked for nearly 14 years. Her writing and editing about space topics helped garner Popular Science the Space Foundation’s 2001 Douglas S. Morrow Public Outreach Award. Earlier, she was a reporter for the Gannett-Westchester Newspapers (now the Journal News) and a stringer for papers in New York and Massachusetts. In 2005 she was Science Writer in Residence at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her chapter on science editing appears in A Field Guide for Science Writers (Oxford University Press, 2005). DiChristina is an officer on the board of the National Association of Science Writers, and former chair of Science Writers in New York. She holds a B.S. in magazine journalism from Boston University.

Trees are renewable energy. Chop one down, plant another one or two or three.....

But moonbats insist that all trees should somehow live thousands of years, not realizing that most species are incapable of that.

Maybe I am prejudiced and unlettered but this is not "peer-revue"....it is PAL revue at best....censorship at worst......
GIGO eitherway.

You know my friends, the single difference of any consequence between 1930's Germany and our present time appears to be the Internet. Everything else in our political and economic system is pretty much the same.

In Germany it wasn't that people couldn't tell that the Big Lie was a lie, its that there was no place they could say so loudly enough for anybody else to hear them.

We, conversely, are blessed with a situation such that every time some wingnut/moonbat/useful idiot/dangerous ideologue/plain old lying sack of guano politician opens their poisonous yap, an airbrush artist in the middle of Saskatchewan or a gearhead in Hooterville Ontario can blow them out of the water with a line by line critique, plain facts and examples drawn from -good- research. Internationally, to boot.

We shall see if that's enough to prevent any further unpleasantness. Seems to be putting some serious starch in Barry's shorts at the moment.

Incidentally Slap Shot, that's a sweet piece of info you've got there. Where'd you dig that baby up?

Climate change is a rare example of a scientific debate that many non-specialists and even non-scientists can join in. The data can be understood by most people, and the concepts in play can be understood without specialized education.

If somebody came out with a critique of Einstein's special relativity theory, then most of us would have to yield to the very few people capable of following the ins and outs of such a discussion.

But with climate change, the general public can form an opinion, and their opinion can be based on more than hunches or gut feelings. The data are out there for anyone to see (despite this talk about manipulated data sets, there are plenty of freely available and generally accepted data sets, as I have linked to in previous threads, such as the 350-year CET series).

It's clear to me that global warming is an unproven theory. It's not a theory proven to be wrong, which is a different outcome. It is a theory that requires further time and study to determine whether it is real, and at what level of intensity or significance it is real.

My estimate is that the effects are fainter than the IPCC lobby are trying to sell to the general public and their political leaders. I don't think the effects are non-existent, but I don't see them as being catastrophic or runaway.

And as the debate goes on, people continue to miss the vitally important detail that we need to address a separate problem, sooty deposition in the arctic, produced from coal and wood burning practices in China and eastern Asia. Those practices can and do lead to the deposition of dark particles on snow and ice in the arctic, having an effect on ice extent that is unrelated to greenhouse gases or the more publicized forms of climate change.

It shows that the situation is largely a political rather than a scientific debate, because on purely scientific terms, we should be more concerned and could be more proactive about the sooty deposition challenge. But I never hear any western politicians placing any form of pressure on China or other Asian nations to clean up their pollution, except for indirect appeals for "everyone to become involved" which fails to separate the issues.

peter

try taxing soot

Another inquisition run by dogmatists.
Like the HRC with a political agenda.

Errors? Not. Deliberate lies with malice aforethought.

Down with UN/IPCC Fraud.
…-

…-

“IPCC AR4 Commenter: “I do not understand why this trend is insignificant – it is more than three times the quoted error estimates”

by Chip Knappenberger
March 8, 2010

Another error in the influential reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports has been identified. This one concerns the rate of expansion of sea ice around Antarctica.

While not an issue for estimates of future sea level rise (sea ice is floating ice which does not influence sea level), a significant expansion of Antarctic sea ice runs counter to climate model projections. As the errors in the climate change “assessment” reports from the IPCC mount, its aura of scientific authority erodes, and with it, the justification for using their findings to underpin national and international efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.

Some climate scientists have distanced themselves from the IPCC Working Group II’s (WGII’s) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, prefering instead the stronger hard science in the Working Group I (WGI) Report—The Physical Science Basis. Some folks have even gone as far as saying that no errors have been found in the WGI Report and the process in creating it was exemplary.

Such folks are in denial.

As I document below, WGI did a poor job in regard to Antarctic sea ice trends. Somehow, the IPCC specialists assessed away a plethora of evidence showing that the sea ice around Antarctica has been significantly increasing—a behavior that runs counter to climate model projections of sea ice declines—and instead documented only a slight, statistically insignificant rise.

How did this happen? The evidence suggests that IPCC authors were either being territorial in defending and promoting their own work in lieu of other equally legitimate (and ultimately more correct) findings, were being guided by IPCC brass to produce a specific IPCC point-of-view, or both.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2010/03/08/how-will-climategate-affect-earth-hour/#comment-76579