The words used here are "suppression" and "manipulation" but as I am a mere thick football fan hopefully "making up" is close enough as a description of what Professor Jones and others have done.
UEA is the centre of climate change research in the UK and governments base decisions on how they are going to spend YOUR money as taxpayers on the results of its research. Hence (shall we say questionable) results and methods are of grave concern regardless as to whether "the voices in your head," as Floyd Montana so elegantly and courteously puts it, tell you that man causes climate change or that climate change is a natural phenomenon and has been since the beginnings of time.
[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]Er Tango, where are the inflammatory religious or climate change comments in your post?
Please stick to the thread!
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]The words used here are "suppression" and "manipulation" but as I am a mere thick football fan hopefully "making up" is close enough as a description of what Professor Jones and others have done.
No, it isnt.
I will take your posting as an agreement that you were quite wrong to say that the ''scam'' as you choose to call it (which in itself is almost unbelievable), is an example of how ''Man will "make up" scientific facts to suit his agenda'' What you wrote is simply wrong. Sorry.
Unless you can trawl around to find something else that might dig you out of a hole and back up your statement.
Oh, and just for your information and education, Len, the UAE is not THE centre of climate change research as you state. Far, far from it. It is just one of many. You might as well call the Met Office Hadley Centre the centre of climate change research.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]The words used here are "suppression" and "manipulation" but as I am a mere thick football fan hopefully "making up" is close enough as a description of what Professor Jones and others have done.
No, it isnt.
I will take your posting as an agreement that you were quite wrong to say that the ''scam'' as you choose to call it (which in itself is almost unbelievable), is an example of how ''Man will "make up" scientific facts to suit his agenda'' What you wrote is simply wrong. Sorry.
Unless you can trawl around to find something else that might dig you out of a hole and back up your statement.
Oh, and just for your information and education, Len, the UAE is not THE centre of climate change research as you state. Far, far from it. It is just one of many. You might as well call the Met Office Hadley Centre the centre of climate change research.
How would you describe the findings shown on the link then?
It looks very much like making up to force an agenda to me as this extract illustrates:
....."1.3 Other examples
These examples are but two of many examples of the manipulation of the presentation of
data to exaggerate global warming that is widespread in the field. There are many examples
of this in Chapter 3 of the 2007 IPCC report, for which Phil Jones was responsible
as lead author. These include:
• The misleading comparison of 25-year, 50-year and 100-year trends to convey the
false impression that warming is accelerating (page 253, inserted into the final
version of the IPCC report after the expert reviews).
• The false claim on page 249 that the world’s surface temperature continued to
increase between the 3rd IPCC report and the 4th (2001-2007). In fact there was
no warming in this period as Jones has recently acknowledged in a BBC interview.
• The false claim on page 252 that in the late 20th century warming temperatures
rose “more strongly” than in the early 20th century. Again this is not true, as
acknowledged by Jones in the BBC interview. This is followed immediately by
another false statement about an increasing rate of warming in the last 25 years.".....
There is specific reference to the work being read by "policy makers."
..."Equally worrying is the instruction from Jones to colleagues to delete emails relating to
AR4, followed by the remark that he had deleted many emails. I hope the Review Team
will ask Jones why he said this, what was in those emails, and why he was so anxious to
delete emails relating to a hugely influential report that was going to be read by policy
makers."......
[cite]Posted By: Robert[/cite]I totally agree, but science is peer reviewed before it can become published and then repeated many times by other researchers before it can be considered "fact" (all of which have to be peer reviewed in order to be published). Whereby religion is based on nothing, with no evidence. In my mind, this is conclusive enough.
Then surely it is you who is closed-minded?
As Oggy has already said, scientific facts are only facts because we say they are, it's all theory.
I disagree. I have looked at the evidence available to me and used my own rational thought to conclude religion is nonsence. People who are religious tend to ignore the facts they have been presented with (or chose not to even look at the facts)...
Religion has been the cause of numerous problems over the years:
wars
terroism
AIDS (religious leaders in africa (and even the pope) have said that wearing a condom should not be allowed, thus sentencing millions of africans (as where the largest AIDS problem is) to a life of misery and death.
Someone mentioned about their kids going to church to instill a moral compass: I am sorry, but you can have a moral compass without going to church etc
In addition, someone mentioned about the laws are made up from religious beliefs: to an extent this is true, but our laws were introduced hundreds of years ago, when the majority of the population were conned into believing in god (religion was a way of keeping people in line)
However, religious leaders at the present often try to interfere with laws (i.e. the laws on abortion and the use of stem cells): in my opinion that is not right and should not be allowed to happen.
As for the climate change argument:
If your making a comment on it, I suggest that you read the scientific literature (from peer reviewed journals before coming to conclusions, rather than reading news reports from the internet (that tend to be biased).
And Saint Christopher of Powellshire said unto to his 11 disciples
"Our people of the red Valley have lost their way with loose talk of false Gods and great floods. They have truly lost their marbles in their suffering and grief without the glory of victory in foreign lands or the comfort of clean sheets.
There is only one true Messiah, the Lord (Curbs) and I am his chosen one. Now that the old and angry Christian has betrayed us in the windy mountains of Oldham he must wear his (number 36) hair shirt on the wooden bench with great shame and remorse.
This Saturday I say unto you that before the whistle is blown three times within the red Valley one of you will betray me with a dodgy pass back or needless foul near our own box.
And it won't be Judas Jenkinson because he is has already been punished by the Holy council of Slater and is no longer fit to be one of my disciples.
And the disciples did look mortally afraid of Saint Christopher as he said these fearful words and texted their agent as soon as he had left them.
How did they manage to get cold weather animals like polar bears on a boat with warm weather animals like salamanders? And, if God decided to punish the earth because of the sins of man, is slaughtering all life not a bit of a stiff punishment? And how does a flood punish the fish and were they allowed on the boat, or did they just do their own thing?
Grumpyaddick I love your Saint Chris of Powellshire quotes. I think they would make a good addition to the match day programme, or at the very least stick them in a fanzine. Something to cheer us up after watching all the soul destroying performances this year.
[cite]Posted By: Robert[/cite]I totally agree, but science is peer reviewed before it can become published and then repeated many times by other researchers before it can be considered "fact" (all of which have to be peer reviewed in order to be published). Whereby religion is based on nothing, with no evidence. In my mind, this is conclusive enough.
Then surely it is you who is closed-minded?
As Oggy has already said, scientific facts are only facts because we say they are, it's all theory.
I disagree. I have looked at the evidence available to me and used my own rational thought to conclude religion is nonsence. People who are religious tend to ignore the facts they have been presented with (or chose not to even look at the facts)...
Religion has been the cause of numerous problems over the years:
wars
terroism
AIDS (religious leaders in africa (and even the pope) have said that wearing a condom should not be allowed, thus sentencing millions of africans (as where the largest AIDS problem is) to a life of misery and death.
Someone mentioned about their kids going to church to instill a moral compass: I am sorry, but you can have a moral compass without going to church etc
In addition, someone mentioned about the laws are made up from religious beliefs: to an extent this is true, but our laws were introduced hundreds of years ago, when the majority of the population were conned into believing in god (religion was a way of keeping people in line)
However, religious leaders at the present often try to interfere with laws (i.e. the laws on abortion and the use of stem cells): in my opinion that is not right and should not be allowed to happen.
As for the climate change argument:
If your making a comment on it, I suggest that you read the scientific literature (from peer reviewed journals before coming to conclusions, rather than reading news reports from the internet (that tend to be biased).
[cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite]How did they manage to get cold weather animals like polar bears on a boat with warm weather animals like salamanders? And, if God decided to punish the earth because of the sins of man, is slaughtering all life not a bit of a stiff punishment? And how does a flood punish the fish and were they allowed on the boat, or did they just do their own thing?
Fish were blameless as were other seafaring creatures. Please read the peer reviewed journals and keep up.
Its got nothing to do with what the thread is about (Dailly), and has gone off in various tangents, some of them ridiculous. Its not been deleted, its there for everyone to carry on the debate if they wish. Its been at the top of the forum all week, so everyone who wants to contribute knows it exists.
Comments
Please stick to the thread!
The words used here are "suppression" and "manipulation" but as I am a mere thick football fan hopefully "making up" is close enough as a description of what Professor Jones and others have done.
UEA is the centre of climate change research in the UK and governments base decisions on how they are going to spend YOUR money as taxpayers on the results of its research. Hence (shall we say questionable) results and methods are of grave concern regardless as to whether "the voices in your head," as Floyd Montana so elegantly and courteously puts it, tell you that man causes climate change or that climate change is a natural phenomenon and has been since the beginnings of time.
He does mention Jesus..... :-)
No, it isnt.
I will take your posting as an agreement that you were quite wrong to say that the ''scam'' as you choose to call it (which in itself is almost unbelievable), is an example of how ''Man will "make up" scientific facts to suit his agenda'' What you wrote is simply wrong. Sorry.
Unless you can trawl around to find something else that might dig you out of a hole and back up your statement.
Oh, and just for your information and education, Len, the UAE is not THE centre of climate change research as you state. Far, far from it. It is just one of many. You might as well call the Met Office Hadley Centre the centre of climate change research.
Stone him! ;-)
How would you describe the findings shown on the link then?
It looks very much like making up to force an agenda to me as this extract illustrates:
....."1.3 Other examples
These examples are but two of many examples of the manipulation of the presentation of
data to exaggerate global warming that is widespread in the field. There are many examples
of this in Chapter 3 of the 2007 IPCC report, for which Phil Jones was responsible
as lead author. These include:
• The misleading comparison of 25-year, 50-year and 100-year trends to convey the
false impression that warming is accelerating (page 253, inserted into the final
version of the IPCC report after the expert reviews).
• The false claim on page 249 that the world’s surface temperature continued to
increase between the 3rd IPCC report and the 4th (2001-2007). In fact there was
no warming in this period as Jones has recently acknowledged in a BBC interview.
• The false claim on page 252 that in the late 20th century warming temperatures
rose “more strongly” than in the early 20th century. Again this is not true, as
acknowledged by Jones in the BBC interview. This is followed immediately by
another false statement about an increasing rate of warming in the last 25 years.".....
There is specific reference to the work being read by "policy makers."
..."Equally worrying is the instruction from Jones to colleagues to delete emails relating to
AR4, followed by the remark that he had deleted many emails. I hope the Review Team
will ask Jones why he said this, what was in those emails, and why he was so anxious to
delete emails relating to a hugely influential report that was going to be read by policy
makers."......
I disagree. I have looked at the evidence available to me and used my own rational thought to conclude religion is nonsence. People who are religious tend to ignore the facts they have been presented with (or chose not to even look at the facts)...
Religion has been the cause of numerous problems over the years:
wars
terroism
AIDS (religious leaders in africa (and even the pope) have said that wearing a condom should not be allowed, thus sentencing millions of africans (as where the largest AIDS problem is) to a life of misery and death.
Someone mentioned about their kids going to church to instill a moral compass: I am sorry, but you can have a moral compass without going to church etc
In addition, someone mentioned about the laws are made up from religious beliefs: to an extent this is true, but our laws were introduced hundreds of years ago, when the majority of the population were conned into believing in god (religion was a way of keeping people in line)
However, religious leaders at the present often try to interfere with laws (i.e. the laws on abortion and the use of stem cells): in my opinion that is not right and should not be allowed to happen.
As for the climate change argument:
If your making a comment on it, I suggest that you read the scientific literature (from peer reviewed journals before coming to conclusions, rather than reading news reports from the internet (that tend to be biased).
anyone seen my coat?
"Our people of the red Valley have lost their way with loose talk of false Gods and great floods. They have truly lost their marbles in their suffering and grief without the glory of victory in foreign lands or the comfort of clean sheets.
There is only one true Messiah, the Lord (Curbs) and I am his chosen one. Now that the old and angry Christian has betrayed us in the windy mountains of Oldham he must wear his (number 36) hair shirt on the wooden bench with great shame and remorse.
This Saturday I say unto you that before the whistle is blown three times within the red Valley one of you will betray me with a dodgy pass back or needless foul near our own box.
And it won't be Judas Jenkinson because he is has already been punished by the Holy council of Slater and is no longer fit to be one of my disciples.
And the disciples did look mortally afraid of Saint Christopher as he said these fearful words and texted their agent as soon as he had left them.
This is the word of Lord Curbs. Thanks be to God.
Amen
Etc Etc
spot on.
Bugger all. Try to keep at the back there!
Fish were blameless as were other seafaring creatures. Please read the peer reviewed journals and keep up.
It depends.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5789592/Catholic-Church-softens-stance-on-suicide.html
The debate has been broadly civil.....
Its got nothing to do with what the thread is about (Dailly), and has gone off in various tangents, some of them ridiculous. Its not been deleted, its there for everyone to carry on the debate if they wish. Its been at the top of the forum all week, so everyone who wants to contribute knows it exists.
Why did you have to bring me into this BFR?