"Mann has been the recipient of several fellowships and prizes, including selection as one of the 50 leading visionaries in Science and Technology by Scientific American, the outstanding scientific publication award of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and recognition by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) for notable citation of his refereed scientific research."
You didn't get the memo? "Science itself called into question..." We'll have to discard science now and find something better. ; )
There is a need for real science, science where the results are compatible with what we already know to be true. Science that normal people can understand, not this ivory tower mumbo-jumbo that is paraded out all the time.
The lies keep on coming... December 15, 2009 Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up Hannah Devlin, Ben Webster, Philippe Naughton in Copenhagen There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday. The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change âspinâ row. Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years. In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: âThese figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.â However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast. âItâs unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,â Dr Maslowski said. âI would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.â Mr Goreâs office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a âballpark figureâ several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore. The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Angliaâs Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming. Mr Gore is not the only titan of the world stage finding Copenhagen to be a tricky deal. World leaders â with Gordon Brown arriving tonight in the vanguard â are facing the humiliating prospect of having little of substance to sign on Friday, when they are supposed to be clinching an historic deal. Meanwhile, five hours of negotiating time were lost yesterday when developing countries walked out in protest over the lack of progress on their demand for legally binding emissions targets from rich nations. The move underlined the distrust between rich and poor countries over the proposed legal framework for the deal. Last night key elements of the proposed deal were unravelling. British officials said they were no longer confident that it would contain specific commitments from individual countries on payments to a global fund to help poor nations to adapt to climate change while the draft text on protecting rainforests has also been weakened. Even the long-term target of ending net deforestation by 2030 has been placed in square brackets, meaning that the date could be deferred. An international monitoring system to identify illegal logging is now described in the text as optional, where before it was compulsory. Negotiators are also unable to agree on a date for a global peak in greenhouse emissions. Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. âThis is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,â Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. âYou really donât need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.â Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowskiâs six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice. âMaslowskiâs work is very well respected, but heâs a bit out on a limb,â said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge. Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020. He added: âI was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this,â he said. âItâs unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Goreâs office.â Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: âHeâs just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.â http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece
why should science cater to or stoop to ignorant people who have no interest in anything that conflicts with their delusions that man walked among dinosaurs and that the earth was created 6000yrs ago? I dont know if there is any other place on earth where there is so much animosity towards science and progress as here. We need to raise the iq of this country or we ll end up like palin or beck.
Big dave is merely pointing out that science has the same problem as al gore, "lack of credibility" and supporting stupid notions". PS: Too bad you lack confidence in your trading but hey I understand your anxiety and animosity.
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fooYtalS9Gc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fooYtalS9Gc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
I read an article a few weeks ago that they misread the amount of Ice at the poles and that the ice was growing not melting. It had something to do with data errors on Sat Data. I will try and dig it up. John "Satellite Sensor Errors Cause Data Outage February 18, 2009 from ArcticSeaIceNewsAndAnalysis Website As some of our readers have already noticed, there was a significant problem with the daily sea ice data images on February 16. The problem arose from a malfunction of the satellite sensor we use for our daily sea ice products. Upon further investigation, we discovered that starting around early January, an error known as sensor drift caused a slowly growing underestimation of Arctic sea ice extent. The underestimation reached approximately 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) by mid-February. Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality control measures prior to archiving the data. See below for more details. We have removed the most recent data and are investigating alternative data sources that will provide correct results. It is not clear when we will have data back online, but we are working to resolve the issue as quickly as possible." http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Meanwhile, this in from people who just got back: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN29351585 And from people who live there: http://www.aaanativearts.com/alaskan-natives/inuit-hunters-thinning-ice.htm
If it's so freaking important to the zealots that arctic sea ice is melting, why isn't it important to them that antarctic sea ice is <b>growing</b>?