- Posts: 3444
- Thank you received: 11
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
- Something the Dog Said
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
28 Jul 2011 15:52 #31
by Something the Dog Said
BOEMRE has barred Monnett from speaking to reporters, Ruch said.
Monnett could not immediately be reached Thursday.
His wife, a fellow scientist, Lisa Rotterman, who answered the phone at their home, said the case did not come out of the blue, that Monnett had come under fire in the past within the agency for speaking the truth about what the science showed, and she feared what happened to him would send a "chilling message" within the agency at a time when important oil and gas development decisions in the Arctic will soon be made.
BOEMRE was created last year in the reorganization of the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, which oversaw offshore drilling. The MMS was abolished after the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The agency was accused of being too close to oil and gas industry interests.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Replied by Something the Dog Said on topic New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
Not quite. It appears that the biologist is being investigated based on undisclosed allegations, and is barred from speaking to anyone about these allegations. According to that article:Grady wrote: and another one bites the dust.
AP Yahoo NewsAPNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation that polar bears likely drowned in the Arctic helped galvanize the global warming movement during the last decade was placed on administrative leave while officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations.
BOEMRE has barred Monnett from speaking to reporters, Ruch said.
Monnett could not immediately be reached Thursday.
His wife, a fellow scientist, Lisa Rotterman, who answered the phone at their home, said the case did not come out of the blue, that Monnett had come under fire in the past within the agency for speaking the truth about what the science showed, and she feared what happened to him would send a "chilling message" within the agency at a time when important oil and gas development decisions in the Arctic will soon be made.
BOEMRE was created last year in the reorganization of the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, which oversaw offshore drilling. The MMS was abolished after the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The agency was accused of being too close to oil and gas industry interests.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- AspenValley
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1955
- Thank you received: 0
28 Jul 2011 15:54 #32
by AspenValley
Interesting bit from the article:
His wife, a fellow scientist, Lisa Rotterman, who answered the phone at their home, said the case did not come out of the blue, that Monnett had come under fire in the past within the agency for speaking the truth about what the science showed, and she feared what happened to him would send a "chilling message" within the agency at a time when important oil and gas development decisions in the Arctic will soon be made.
Replied by AspenValley on topic New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
Grady wrote: and another one bites the dust.
AP Yahoo NewsAPNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation that polar bears likely drowned in the Arctic helped galvanize the global warming movement during the last decade was placed on administrative leave while officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations.
Interesting bit from the article:
His wife, a fellow scientist, Lisa Rotterman, who answered the phone at their home, said the case did not come out of the blue, that Monnett had come under fire in the past within the agency for speaking the truth about what the science showed, and she feared what happened to him would send a "chilling message" within the agency at a time when important oil and gas development decisions in the Arctic will soon be made.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- The Viking
-
Topic Author
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 9276
- Thank you received: 31
28 Jul 2011 16:08 #33
by The Viking
yeah the loon who helped start at this alarmist hysteria has now been fired for misconduct and going over the top with his assessments. What a surprise.
Replied by The Viking on topic New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
Grady wrote: and another one bites the dust.
AP Yahoo NewsAPNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation that polar bears likely drowned in the Arctic helped galvanize the global warming movement during the last decade was placed on administrative leave while officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations.
yeah the loon who helped start at this alarmist hysteria has now been fired for misconduct and going over the top with his assessments. What a surprise.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- AspenValley
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1955
- Thank you received: 0
28 Jul 2011 16:11 #34
by AspenValley
Where does it say he's been fired for misconduct? I must have missed that part. Or are you just being "alarmist"?
Replied by AspenValley on topic New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
The Viking wrote:
Grady wrote: and another one bites the dust.
AP Yahoo NewsAPNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation that polar bears likely drowned in the Arctic helped galvanize the global warming movement during the last decade was placed on administrative leave while officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations.
yeah the loon who helped start at this alarmist hysteria has now been fired for misconduct and going over the top with his assessments. What a surprise.
Where does it say he's been fired for misconduct? I must have missed that part. Or are you just being "alarmist"?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- The Viking
-
Topic Author
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 9276
- Thank you received: 31
28 Jul 2011 16:12 #35
by The Viking
I read it in other stories. I will find it. Maybe misconduct wasn't the word but I think it was.
Replied by The Viking on topic New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
AspenValley wrote:
The Viking wrote:
Grady wrote: and another one bites the dust.
AP Yahoo NewsAPNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation that polar bears likely drowned in the Arctic helped galvanize the global warming movement during the last decade was placed on administrative leave while officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations.
yeah the loon who helped start at this alarmist hysteria has now been fired for misconduct and going over the top with his assessments. What a surprise.
Where does it say he's been fired for misconduct? I must have missed that part. Or are you just being "alarmist"?
I read it in other stories. I will find it. Maybe misconduct wasn't the word but I think it was.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- AspenValley
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1955
- Thank you received: 0
28 Jul 2011 16:15 #36
by AspenValley
You read he was FIRED? The AP article, which is only 30 minutes old, only says there is an investigation and he is on leave while it continues. Are you telling me they finished the investigation and fired him in less than 30 minutes?
Replied by AspenValley on topic New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
The Viking wrote:
AspenValley wrote:
The Viking wrote:
Grady wrote: and another one bites the dust.
AP Yahoo NewsAPNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation that polar bears likely drowned in the Arctic helped galvanize the global warming movement during the last decade was placed on administrative leave while officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations.
yeah the loon who helped start at this alarmist hysteria has now been fired for misconduct and going over the top with his assessments. What a surprise.
Where does it say he's been fired for misconduct? I must have missed that part. Or are you just being "alarmist"?
I read it in other stories. I will find it. Maybe misconduct wasn't the word but I think it was.
You read he was FIRED? The AP article, which is only 30 minutes old, only says there is an investigation and he is on leave while it continues. Are you telling me they finished the investigation and fired him in less than 30 minutes?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- LadyJazzer
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 14871
- Thank you received: 26
28 Jul 2011 16:19 #37
by LadyJazzer
You can hear the surprise in *MY* voice.... :faint:
Replied by LadyJazzer on topic New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
Something the Dog Said wrote: This an absolute piece of garbage, but that is to be expected from Viking. The "article" written by James Taylor, a LAWYER, for the anti global warming, oil company & Koch Bros. funded Heartland Institute, allegedly quotes from a scholarly article in Remote Sensing by credible scientists. If you bother to actually read that article, it does not support the "conclusions" by Lawyer Taylor.
No where do they discuss the conclusions for the lawyer for the Heartland Institute, nor do they discuss any gaping hold in Alarmisn". This is pure unadulterated garbage, but then again what can you expect from conservatives like Viking.
You can hear the surprise in *MY* voice.... :faint:
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- ScienceChic
-
- Mountain Champion
-
Less
More
- Posts: 15740
- Thank you received: 319
28 Jul 2011 16:21 #38
by ScienceChic
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... oad-irony/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... g-blunder/
One obvious problem to me is that it only looks at data covering 2000-2011 - not anything else prior. See this post in RealClimate for why that's short-sighted:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... mparisons/
2010 updates to model-data comparisons
— gavin @ 21 January 2011
Somewhere I have links that explain the data seen in the warming from 2000-2010, but I'm not finding them quickly and I need to go grab some lunch. I'll try to find them later. To summarize, the Forbes article is a bad example of misrepresenting the science, and the science needs confirmation. If it turns out to be good data, then it will help tighten the climate models forecasts, but it does not refute global warming.
Really quickly: Omniscience, again, you are complaining about policy, not the science. We are addressing the science here.
Rockdoc, I will happily respond to your posts, hopefully well, a bit later! Sorry for the delay!
I will also link back to this thread I started a while back on temperature predictions and their accuracy as I think it's a good reminder of what the scientists do know and are good at predicting what will come - yes, short-term is easier to be more accurate, but if they can be that successful with short-term, isn't it worth considering their long-term predictions too, especially in light of the fact that they fully explain the drawbacks/uncertainties inherent in them?
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Replied by ScienceChic on topic New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
Thank you for linking to the actual study. After perusing it, I didn't see any sentence anywhere in which global warming is debunked, as is claimed by the Heritage Institutes lawyer (yes, that's who James Taylor is - he also wrote the crappy Fox News article trying to make it look like sea level data was being manipulated - see here for that episode). What this study might do is help to improve the accuracy of the climate models, but it in know way refutes the data of global warming. I say might because Spencer has had to publish corrections for glaring errors before, this paper is not written in good scientific language, and his misrepresentation of the science is well-documented so I will wait until I see further reviews/confirmation of this data before trusting it.The Viking wrote: Here is the actual study......
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... oad-irony/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... y-lessons/Next. Roy Spencer, best known for his satellite work arguing against warming of the atmosphere (which turns out to have been an artifact of a combination of algebraic and sign errors), criticizes Gore for pointing out that recent warmth appears to be anomalous in at least the past 1000 years. Spencer does this by both mis-characterizing the recent National Academies Report on the subject which indeed pointed out that there are numerous lines of evidence for precisely this conclusion, and by completely ignoring the recently-released IPCC Fourth Assessment report, which draws the stronger conclusion that the warmth of recent decades is likely anomalous in at least the past 1300 years.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... g-blunder/
One obvious problem to me is that it only looks at data covering 2000-2011 - not anything else prior. See this post in RealClimate for why that's short-sighted:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... mparisons/
2010 updates to model-data comparisons
— gavin @ 21 January 2011
The comments on last year’s post (and responses) are worth reading before commenting on this post, and there are a number of points that shouldn’t need to be repeated again:
Short term (15 years or less) trends in global temperature are not usefully predictable as a function of current forcings. This means you can’t use such short periods to ‘prove’ that global warming has or hasn’t stopped, or that we are really cooling despite this being the warmest decade in centuries.
Somewhere I have links that explain the data seen in the warming from 2000-2010, but I'm not finding them quickly and I need to go grab some lunch. I'll try to find them later. To summarize, the Forbes article is a bad example of misrepresenting the science, and the science needs confirmation. If it turns out to be good data, then it will help tighten the climate models forecasts, but it does not refute global warming.
Really quickly: Omniscience, again, you are complaining about policy, not the science. We are addressing the science here.
Rockdoc, I will happily respond to your posts, hopefully well, a bit later! Sorry for the delay!
I will also link back to this thread I started a while back on temperature predictions and their accuracy as I think it's a good reminder of what the scientists do know and are good at predicting what will come - yes, short-term is easier to be more accurate, but if they can be that successful with short-term, isn't it worth considering their long-term predictions too, especially in light of the fact that they fully explain the drawbacks/uncertainties inherent in them?
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- pineinthegrass
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 2836
- Thank you received: 25
28 Jul 2011 19:42 #39
by pineinthegrass
So STDS is now on record endorsing the credible work of Roy Spencer. lol
Replied by pineinthegrass on topic New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
Something the Dog Said wrote: This an absolute piece of garbage, but that is to be expected from Viking. The "article" written by James Taylor, a LAWYER, for the anti global warming, oil company & Koch Bros. funded Heartland Institute, allegedly quotes from a scholarly article in Remote Sensing by credible scientists. If you bother to actually read that article, it does not support the "conclusions" by Lawyer Taylor.
So STDS is now on record endorsing the credible work of Roy Spencer. lol
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Rockdoc
-
- Mountain Legend
-
28 Jul 2011 20:26 - 28 Jul 2011 20:43 #40
by Rockdoc
Is there any way at all that you can discuss the actual topic without the political BS of conservatives vs liberal? Not everyone fits into those pigeon holes you love to use. Satellite data is the topic and as the article points out there are significant problems in trying to interpret data.
Moreover, what gets reported in the news is often an interpretation of what a scientist says rather than what that scientist actually said. Little words like may or could etc. are critical as they reflect degrees of uncertainty in a scientists mind, yet they are often lost in translation. Global warming is not going to go away any time soon, but I'm certain there will be prolonged arguments over its cause and how rapidly it is happening. You can use short term observed patterns to project forward, but those will have a far greater margin of error than projections based on a more substantial data base. And finally, there is always more than one way to look at something, meaning interpret. It does not mean that one way is right or wrong, it just is different. Continued gathering of information will naturally sort out which interpretation is best. Some people are very good at putting interpretations together on limited data and their insight if significantly ahead of mainstream science is debauched by other scientists, only later to be lauded for their vision. Go figure. In the end, good science will prevail.
Replied by Rockdoc on topic New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
Something the Dog Said wrote: This an absolute piece of garbage, but that is to be expected from Viking. The "article" written by James Taylor, a LAWYER, for the anti global warming, oil company & Koch Bros. funded Heartland Institute, allegedly quotes from a scholarly article in Remote Sensing by credible scientists. If you bother to actually read that article, it does not support the "conclusions" by Lawyer Taylor.
......,snip.
No where do they discuss the conclusions for the lawyer for the Heartland Institute, nor do they discuss any gaping hold in Alarmisn". This is pure unadulterated garbage, but then again what can you expect from conservatives like Viking.
Is there any way at all that you can discuss the actual topic without the political BS of conservatives vs liberal? Not everyone fits into those pigeon holes you love to use. Satellite data is the topic and as the article points out there are significant problems in trying to interpret data.
Moreover, what gets reported in the news is often an interpretation of what a scientist says rather than what that scientist actually said. Little words like may or could etc. are critical as they reflect degrees of uncertainty in a scientists mind, yet they are often lost in translation. Global warming is not going to go away any time soon, but I'm certain there will be prolonged arguments over its cause and how rapidly it is happening. You can use short term observed patterns to project forward, but those will have a far greater margin of error than projections based on a more substantial data base. And finally, there is always more than one way to look at something, meaning interpret. It does not mean that one way is right or wrong, it just is different. Continued gathering of information will naturally sort out which interpretation is best. Some people are very good at putting interpretations together on limited data and their insight if significantly ahead of mainstream science is debauched by other scientists, only later to be lauded for their vision. Go figure. In the end, good science will prevail.
Last edit: 28 Jul 2011 20:43 by Rockdoc.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.172 seconds
sponsors
