And I imagine that green chemistry is about producing nontoxic chemicals, nothing really to do with this global warming discussion.

So why is it "peer reviewed science" fails miserably in every one of their modles? And why is it these "peers" are only those who already toe the company line? Any who dare oppose are ridiculed and info is kept from them. Science is supposed to embrace questioning, please explain why any and all who DARE question global warming are shut out...that is if this truly is peer reviewed and not simply "buddy reviewed", You have also failed to acknowledge the many examples of hiding and fibbing about data, you have failed to acknowledge the massive funding these agencies receive ONLY if global warming is a threat. Am I asking you to ignore their findings simply because they have an agenda? Nope, that wouldn't be scientific would it? Yet you ask us to ignore any who have a possible agenda that does not agree with your own. Yes, they should be questioned, again, that's science!

Of course they should be questioned!
At what point, however, does the statistical weight of enough respected scientists overwhelm some ant-leftist bias of your own? How many more perfectly sound organizations need be added to that list before you relent?

Obviously, peer review is not perfect and it is a CONSTANT debate within the scientific community on how to make it better and how to remove biases.

Dismissing the whole institution without a replacement seems foolish

blu, cmon, if someone can say global warming is cause by fossil fuels, christ do I really need to spell this out for you, i think you have been looking with a beaker too long.
if you can say global warming is because of fossil fuels, then you can say the new importance of green energy and guess what, here come the grants.
I hope you got high grades in chemistry because you suck at connect the dots.

Here is the link to the Green Chemistry Grant. It is one paltry $50000 grant for studying transition-metal catalyzed silane reductions. I connected the dots right into a brick wall having absolutely nothing to do with some shady conspiracy, just boring chemistry.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/funding-and-awards/grants/gci.html

when things like this don't screw up all your models:
Again it is arrogant to think we can change this planet on any significant scale.

http://www.rtcc.org/2013/09/23/global-cooling-how-will-the-ipcc-explain-15-year-temperature-hiatus/

blu, it doesn't matter the size, it's the same all over the more I try to prove fossil fuels are bad the more money I get, that's the point. and you 50,000 will grow if these guys lie about some stats and they will get more grants, like that doesn't happen, that would be very naive.

I would say that data falsification happens but much more rarely than you think. Other scientists would love nothing more to pounce upon shitty data getting their own publication bashing the fraudulent group. That is how science works!

you know what with all your "data" being debunked damn near daily, I will believe you when I see palm trees in my back yard here in wisconsin, fair enough?

and this warming is due to man burning fossil fuels, no doubt about it!
But why have we had past warming spells and past ice ages? Why did we have a long warming trend way back in the middle ages? Burning fossil fuels then as well?
You can conveniently look beyond HISTORY and blame it ALL on man, I will side with history on my side.

Oh, and how about the fact that, based on past trends, we are over due for another ice age? Maybe we are thwarting a REAL tragedy huh?

Sounds good! I personally don't have much interest in this anyway...
I'm a biochemist by trade and think about saving the world from antibiotic resistant bacteria. It is wonderfully nonpolitical (that is not really true. the government seriously needs to initiate a Manhattan Project size endeavor to tackle these scary micro critters soon or here come the four horsemen)

That was for Defiant.
Why does it have to be history OR man? Can't it be that there were natural cycles that have been sent out of whack by all of the greenhouse emissions and crazy free radicals pumped out into the air?

now that I agree with you, I don't like to hear that ther is another super bug that is drug resistant, those little bastards will kill us before an global warming problem.

and yes, it's cold in Wisconsin.
Let's assume this warming is due to man.
OK, we have been spewing more and more of this crap yet it's a colder than normal winter in Wisconsin. If it's supposed to be warming, why is it for what 20-30 years now we are STILL setting record cold temps? When does it start making no sense?

Try this, put a pot of water on your stove,
the heat underneath continues to heat the water and it gets warmer and warmer and warmer. It doesn't get warmer, then colder, then a bit warmer, then after 5 minutes get record cold. It's continuous, yes the earth will have many more variations, I get that. But over several DECADES, why are we STILL setting record cold temps? And why is it every single climate model has failed miserably? Every one has failed and the common sense involved is ignored. But I'm too much a simpleton, warming to me means it's getting warmer, warming to the alarmists means it's sometimes getting warmer and sometimes getting colder and sometimes ???

no blue, it can't be that because you haven't proven that they are pushing us out of whack as you say, it is just natural, just he way it is.

Tom: here is my simple knowledge on the matter.

1) Global warming reduces arctic ice caps
2) The loss of ice reduces the cold sink for thermal convection channles in the Atlantic Ocean
3) Warm water from the equator is no longer driven up north to warm the northern USA
4) Ice age results from global warming

Now, that is ridiculously simplistic and localized to the Atlantic but imagine if 50 more of these type of disruptions were occurring. Warm air going here causes cold air going there which causes a butterfly to explode across the globe...

But the Antarctic has grown?

ahhh buddy, the ice caps in the arctic have increased this year as well as the cold.
yet another debunk?

http://www.examiner.com/article/arctic-ice-cap-increases-60-one-year-so-is-an-ice-age-now-coming

Arctic, not Antarctic.

i said arctic.

Like I said, it is a simplistic model and most likely part of some bigger system.
But, I also admit that the science and modeling is way beyond me and that really is the point isn't it?

What do you do when the science is so complex that the margin between the knowledge of the lay person (myself included when it comes to global warming) and the knowledge of the expert get's too vast? There is a point when trust is needed or else all science and progress is thrown out the window.

I was talking to Tom about Antarctic

Anyway, fun talk! I need to get out of here for the present...

the problem is blu, you are trying to predict something that really is unpredictable. To my point the planet is so vast it adjusts itself. you know more co2 in the air, what feeds on co2, plantlife so more plants thus moving to keep the co2 more stable. IMO, no model can ever predict with accuracy because of wa too many variables. just when you think global warming is cooling down, now the sunspots get hotter for five years, there is so much shit and it can't be predicted.

goodnight blu

Hey again! The earth certainly is a very complex system and you are possibly correct, that no model will accuarately portray all of its details.

Two things however.
Firstly, there may be a point where the model may not be perfect but it is close enough and demonstrates enough predictive power to be of real economic and social utility. Secondly, in these days of big data and Watson-like specialized artificial intelligence, I wouldn't put it past one of these statistical software platforms to be able to accurately predict better than any model made by humans. The problem will be that while it will work to some "good enough" degree, there will be no intuitive model for humans to understand and learn from (think of google translate for instance which has no real model for grammar or language but by the brute force of statistics and enough data is able to provide some very real translation value - whether this language expertise ever gets to the level of an expert poet by statistics is a very open question)

Defiant: On Benghazi, are you saying you know more than the last few Secretaries of Defense? And if what you say were correct, do you really think the current administration would purposely not respond? And articles and expert testimony are credible evidence for making an informed opinion and gaining knowledge, why would you throw that out? You are basically saying our military is the most advanced in the world and should be able to handle the situation, and if someone disagrees with your opinion, then they're not a thinking person. But that's just not the case according the last few heads of national security.

And I've read Heritage Foundation articles my Republican friends send me as well as Krauthammer, and I think they're way off base on the environment. Scientific organizations and peer-reviewed science is not leftist, it's science! Conservatives and people of all political leanings from all over the world contribute to them too! And all these American scientific organizations worked for Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Reagan... too, so why would they have been saying the same thing then that they are now? (See atmospheric scientist James Hansen's testimony before Congress in 1989. Not only has what he said come to bear, but it's come much faster than scientists originally thought.)

Your whole argument is that there's a conspiracy and the evidence is falsified, and yet the evidence just continues to accumulate. You can't fake what's going on in all the temperature readings in the world, the melting of the Arctic, Greenland, and ice sheets, rising sea levels, increasing acidity in the ocean... You are just so planted in your position, you refuse to see what's actually happening. I don't know why you think man can't affect nature, perhaps it's religious reasons, but you really couldn't be more wrong. We are completely transforming the planet in many ways.

And anything with the word European in it is liberal, really? That is really far out on the conspiracy level and makes no sense considering all the conservative factions in Europe. Further, all these other media organization that do not agree with the Heritage Foundation are not necessarily leftist either, there's a whole world out there beyond the Heritage Foundation.

Gates: Some Benghazi Critics Have "Cartoonish" View of Military Capability
CBS News
Jake Miller
May 12, 2013
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gates-some-benghazi-critics-have-cartoonish-view-of-military-capability/

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates forcefully defended the Obama administration on Sunday against charges that it did not do enough to prevent the tragedy in Benghazi, telling CBS' "Face the Nation" that some critics of the administration have a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces."

Gates, a Republican who was appointed by then-President George W. Bush in 2006 and agreed to stay through more than two years of President Obama's first term, repeatedly declined to criticize the policymakers who devised a response to the September 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

"Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were," said Gates, now the chancellor of the College of William and Mary.

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible." he explained.

Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to "scare them with the noise or something," Gates said, ignored the "number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi's arsenals."

"I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said....


Tomahaha: Climate models are also based on evidence and have continually told the same story, each decade is hotter than the last:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/02/20/mcnider-and-christy-defend-inertia/

And peers are from universities, businesses, and governments from all over the world. It's silly to say they are towing the company line, particularly when this process has worked so well for so many areas of science for hundreds of years. Just as you would have someone who knows something about a jet do a safety check on a jet, this is no different. And the person checking the jet may in fact be working for a competitor of the person making or flying the jet. Believe me, you wouldn't want a novice doing a safety check on a jet.

And no one is ridiculing people because they are simply opposed to them, they are saying that the opposition does not have the evidence to overturn the findings of established climate measurements and science. Trying to discredit and cast doubt continually on various results or funding that comes from multiple universities, businesses, governments... in multiple countries throughout the world simply does not discount the body of evidence that backs up what we are seeing in the climate. You are using the same arguments the tobacco companies used for so long to cast doubt on the scientific evidence that nicotine can cause cancer.

And just because there was warming in the past, mostly over thousands or millions of years or due to cataclysmic events, like super volcano eruptions and asteroids hitting the Earth, doesn't mean that we aren't rapidly warming the Earth up over the course of decades to a point that could lead to a mass extinction event in a very short amount of time. And see the Hansen quote in my last post about why warming is not linear and why extreme weather of all types is to be expected. As for the Antarctic, land ice is melting, falling into the ocean, and accelerating the growth of sea ice... for now. See this PBS article if you want to learn more:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/why-climate-change-means-more-and-less-ice-for-the-antarctic/

I found this guy of interest:
http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-with-a-marker-just-made-the-global-warming-debate-completely-obsolete-7

To think that Science is in the truth business is fairly ridiculous. To believe that Science is not politicized everyday is terribly naive. To think that Scientists do not oftentimes behave like cult members is to have not met and interacted with Scientists. I will always be skeptical of climate science given my background in mathematical modelling and knowing how easy such methodologies are driven by framework assumptions. One of the first large "blackbox"-ish models I ever played around with was one of the climate models and it spit out "global warming" no matter what I put in the other side. I also will always remember being told as a child by Dr. Neil Frank that "climate science" had in his opinion ceased to be Science. He judged his profession to have degenerated in to little more than a series of revival meetings immune to any alternative views. While I am a social scientist rather than a physical scientist, I have in the last year witnessed a major government agency fire a highly regarded Scientist because of his resistance to the politicization of "disinterested" research. The bureaucrats in charge overruled two Nobel Prize Winners who attempted to intervene and both were threatened with having their research appointments ended. In one case, the well regarded wife of one of the Nobel Laureates was brought up as being a discretionary appointment on a year-to-year basis. Her husband is arguably the most well regarded person in his field and he was told to shut up by the policy paymasters within the bureaucracy. So I somewhat scoff at the image of disinterested Science arriving at conclusions as the "fact" lead them.