HuffPost: 'Climategate' Investigation Vindicates Scientists, Finds Research Reliable

[alexey]

What exactly are his credentials?

You can read up on Gore here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

[twa]

You can read up on Gore here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

Better than I thought I must admit:ols:

Gore enrolled in Harvard University in 1965, initially planning to major in English and write novels, but later deciding to major in government.[21][22] On his second day on campus, he began campaigning for the freshman student government council, and was elected its president.[22]

Though he was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and mathematical theories,[22] he did not do well in science classes in college, and avoided taking math.[21] His grades during his first two years put him in the lower one-fifth of the class. During his sophomore year, he reportedly spent much of his time watching tv, shooting pool, and occasionally smoking marijuana.[21][22] In his junior and senior years, he became more involved with his studies, earning As and Bs.[21] In his senior year, he took a class with oceanographer and global warming theorist Roger Revelle, who sparked Gore's interest in global warming and other environmental issues.[22][29] Gore earned an A on his bachelor of arts thesis, "The Impact of Television on the Conduct of the Presidency, 1947-1969", and graduated with honors in June 1969.[30][21]

[alexey]

Better than I thought I must admit:ols:

Yeah and also stuff like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_and_Communication_Act_of_1991

Among the many technological achievements that resulted from the funding of the Gore Bill, was the development of Mosaic in 1993,[5][10] the World Wide Web browser software which is credited by most scholars as beginning the Internet boom of the 1990s

Then again, we also know that "most scholars" tend to form vast conspiracies around Mr. Gore.

[PeterMP]

The next time somebody here that isn't a skeptic quotes Gore or Gore is quoted in some reasonable scientific manner by an organization like the IPCC, let me know.

[twa]

The next time somebody here that isn't a skeptic quotes Gore or Gore is quoted in some reasonable scientific manner by an organization like the IPCC, let me know.

Do I take that to mean Gore is a irrelevant hack...or just irrelevant to the real science of climate change?

I'm getting confused;)

[alexey]

Do I take that to mean Gore is a irrelevant hack...or just irrelevant to the real science of climate change?

Gore is relevant to skeptics. And yes, neither Gore nor skeptics are relevant to the real science of climate change

[twa]

Gore is relevant to skeptics. And yes, neither Gore nor skeptics are relevant to the real science of climate change

So a credentialed,published scientist in that specific field is irrelevant and should shut up and sit down?

Thanks for clarifying the New scientific method....kinda resembles the Inquisition:ols:

[PeterMP]

So a credentialed,published scientist in that specific field is irrelevant and should shut up and sit down?

No.

He should stop writing hit pieces for the WSJ editorial pages that include things like "data manipulation" in the tittle, but then don't actually mention data manipulation in the piece and trying to pretend like something that has been in the public domain for years is new information and try publishing something relevant in the peer reviewed literature.

And if he REALLY believes he has relevant information to bring forward to the peer reviewed literature, then he should publically and loudly make that case and not just to off the cuff refer to "perfect manuscripts" that were rejected.

Where are the manuscripts?

Whom rejected them?

Where are the rejection letters?

If you read the climate change blogs, this is where Spencer is at least given some respect. He holds an opinion that the majority of the people in his field don't He admits that, and tries to work through the field in a meaningful manner, including taking criticisms from the people in the field that think he's wrong.

The end result though is his stuff is being published in peer reviewed journals, while this guy is writing stuff that is as relevant as anything Al Gore ever said on the topic for the WSJ.

It is PEER reviewed. It isn't NEUTRALLY reviewed. If you want to go against the majority, you better make sure all of you t's are crossed and i's are dotted.

If you ain't willling to do that, then you should shut up and sit down.

[twa]

Sounds fair Peter....at least you recognize that peer review is biased to a certain outcome.

I guess complaining of that bias in peer review and bias and conflict of interest in the investigation panel is somewhat out of line and he should work within the system to expose it.

Let me know how well that works out for ya.

[alexey]

So a credentialed,published scientist in that specific field is irrelevant and should shut up and sit down?

Thanks for clarifying the New scientific method....kinda resembles the Inquisition:ols:

I am not in a position to tell Patrick J. Michaels what he should or should not be doing. He is making great money doing what he does.

Here is some more information on your "credentialed, published scientist":

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_J._Michaels

[alexey]

Sounds fair Peter....at least you recognize that peer review is biased to a certain outcome.

As long as you recognize that Patrick J. Michaels is biased towards income

(but yeah, if you come out against the consensus and say that 2+2=5, then you better bring a good argument)

[twa]

As long as you recognize that Patrick J. Michaels is biased towards income

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Oh wait,clearly all those scientist requesting grants and funding are altruistic at heart and indifferent to getting paid....how could I be so blind.

He should have stayed a college professor and shut up,or toed the accepted line

[PeterMP]

Sounds fair Peter....at least you recognize that peer review is biased to a certain outcome.

I guess complaining of that bias in peer review and bias and conflict of interest in the investigation panel is somewhat out of line and he should work within the system to expose it.

Let me know how well that works out for ya.

Once upon a time, the system was biased AGAINST the outcome of AGW.

I don't see where he wrote anything before the consensus was established pro-AGW where he was complaining about how the system worked.

Seems like he was fine with things until he was the one that was left behind.

That's the way science works.

For the most part, it is slow to change and once it has changed, it is REALLY slow to change back.

If you want to push the old view that is now in the minority, you better REALLY be on your game.

[alexey]

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Oh wait,clearly all those scientist requesting grants and funding are altruistic at heart and indifferent to getting paid....how could I be so blind.

He should have stayed a college professor and shut up,or toed the accepted line

Are you seriously putting salaries of scientists on the same line as those of successful lobbyists and PR operators for multi-billion dollar industries?

[alexey]

Seems like he was fine with things until he was the one that was left behind.

I'd say he realized where the money's at:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_J._Michaels

In 1988 Michaels became more active in writing on global warming issues. The following year he was involved in the writing of a technical report the impact of sulfur dioxide emissions in Virginia [10], and the following year was involved in a project funded to the tune of $40,000 by the Cyprus Minerals Company.[11][3]

But during 1989 and 1990 it was as a global warming skeptic that Michaels was really making a name for himself.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18] In 1989 Michaels made several appearances before Congressional committees, an appearance at a Brookings Institution event and invitations to speak to a smattering of industry groups. Some of the invitations he accepted were to speak to the Executive Board of the National Coal Association in Phoenix, Arizona, the annual meeting of the Western Fuels Association in Denver and the International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, the Edison Electric Institute and Basin Electric Power Cooperative.[3]

[PeterMP]

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Oh wait,clearly all those scientist requesting grants and funding are altruistic at heart and indifferent to getting paid....how could I be so blind.

He should have stayed a college professor and shut up,or toed the accepted line

No they aren't, BUT the vast majority of them are tenured and will be paid and can't get fired if they have ZERO grants.

One of the VERY VERY few ways for them to lose their jobs and lose their income is be be guilty of scientific misconduct, such as lying in a grant application.

[The Evil Genius]

So research for the Global Warming Scam is now reliable (allegedly) just in time to ram thru Cap and Tax before the November elections.

Ironically, free market conservatives were one of the major forces behind cap and trade, and under Bush (HW), they got their wish.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html

[twa]

Ironically, free market conservatives were one of the major forces behind cap and trade, and under Bush (HW), they got their wish.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html

Next ya gonna tell us HW signed the clean air act ,W put in place policies that drastically reduced emissions in Texas and BP and other Big Oil players push cap and trade now

It's a odd world,and they have your best interests at heart

The devil as usual is in the details....kinda like climategate