Balanced view

[havelock]

For those who would like a less biased and more balanced view of climate science, this is a good site to use www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/doing-it-yourselves/#more-4881

Here's some of their material as a'taster'

"First off, the NOAA/BAMS “State of the Climate 2009” report arrived in mailboxes this week (it has been available online since July though). Each year this gets better and more useful for people tracking what is going on. And this year they have created a data portal for all the data appearing in the graphs, including a lot of data previously unavailable online. Well worth a visit.

Second, many of you will be aware that the UK Met Office is embarking on a bottom-up renovation of the surface temperature data sets including daily data and more extensive sources than have previously been available. Their website is surfacetemperatures.org, and they are canvassing input from the public until Sept 1 on their brand new blog. In related news, Ron Broberg has made a great deal of progress on a project to use the much more extensive daily weather report data into a useful climate record. Something that the pros have been meaning to do for a while…. "

Here's the link to the Met Office blog where anyone can contribute
surfacetemperatures.blogspot.com/

[marchesarosa]

The Truth about RealClimate.org

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/google_earth_street_2880broadway.jpg


"RealClimate.org is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an "objective" source on climate change.
It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics
who are all self proclaimed "climatologists".

Yet skeptical scientists with equivalent credentials are not (probably because they have not proclaimed it).
Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with
their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for
government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide.

Standard operating procedure is to post "rebuttals" to everything they disagree with
and then declare victory,
making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn't matter if they actual rebutted any of
the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism.

This gives their fanboys "ammunition" to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet
(and of course declare victory).
Their resident propagandist William Connolley's job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia.

In the world of global warming alarmist "science" pretending you win is apparently all that matters because
in real debates they lose.

The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group,
Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don't want you to know that."


The address for NASA's famous Goddard Institute of Space Studies aka “RealClimate.org”
is 545 West 112th Street, New York.

More interesting stuff about NASA/GISS's realclimate employee, Gavin Schmidt, here. Yes, the tax payer
is paying this man's wages so he can blog full time on relaclimate for climate alarmism
and support the ever-falling reputation of his crackpot boss, Jim Hansen and his pal Michael Mann.

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/21/nasa-giss-a-division-of-vandelay-industries/



Would you buy a used car from this man? Me neither!

He is pictured outside his Broadway office (behind him, the home of Goddard Space Studies Institute)
which produces NASA's global temperature databse[/size][/b]

[havelock]

Here is another balanced website www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

some of the comments people have left include:

1.Evolver109 at 07:59 AM on 14 October, 2009
Not only does this site have depth and clarity, you're a model of how to present facts without demonizing those with contrary views. Thanks!

2.Ron333wood at 23:43 PM on 20 October, 2009
Thank you for a website that provides information without a political agenda. I would like to understand the global warming debate without feeling like I am being manipulated by someone with a political agenda and most web-sites seem to promote an agenda for one side or the other. Thanks.


Note the emphasis on not 'demonising' the contrary view or 'politicising' the debate.

Unfortunately, I have not yet come across a sceptic site with a similar open approach.

[marchesarosa]

I don't think you've ever visited a "sceptic" website, Sprain, so how would you know?

Try WUWT if you really want to broaden your mind.

Or try the BBC Science Board. They have a few sceptics willing to pass the time of day with you.

[havelock]

Aug 27, 2010 12:35:05 GMT marchesarosa said:

Would you buy a used car from this man? Me neither!

This is an example of the abuse that can be found on many sites that try to refute AGW. They can't knock the science so they go for personal attacks.

Sadly, this is typical of what I have read elsewhere on this 'Climate Blog' (a term I use loosely).

[jean]

This sounds interesting, doesnt it?

Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway

"Thus the tactics – the spreading of doubt and confusion – of a small group of cold war ideologues have worked their way across America and have now crossed the Atlantic so that the public in both the US and the UK are more confused than ever about the truth on a series of key scientific issues, in particular global warming, even though scientists have become more certain about the accuracy of their efforts.

In many ways, it is a tough message to stomach, though there is no doubt that Oreskes and Conway deserve considerable praise for this outstanding book and for exposing the influence of these dark ideologues. Merchants of Doubt – which includes detailed notes on all sources – is clearly and cleanly outlined, carefully paced and is my runaway contender for best science book of the year."

www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/08/merchants-of-doubt-oreskes-conway

More reviews:

www.bloomsburypress.com/books/catalog/merchants_of_doubt_hc_104

journalofcosmology.com/BookReview3.html

[havelock]

I think I'll be putting this book on my Christmas list.

From the guardian link you gave:

"the hallmark of a group of far-right institutions that are funded by businesses and conservative foundations and supported by a coterie of rightwing scientists who believe ecological threats are made up by lefty researchers as part of a grand plan to expand government control over our lives. "

Sounds like the new McCarthyism.

I wonder what it is about American society that throws up these sort of groups?

[marchesarosa]

Just came cross this website where the posts that realclimate censors from the record can be found.

Imagine it! You can actually build a website based solely around what
Gavin Schmidt has deleted from view!

rcrejects.wordpress.com/

Fabulous. What a fascinating take on message board "democracy", jean.

You and our Gavin are kindred spirits.

[jean]

I'm not sure that's a very good comparison, marchesa, since I have never deleted a whole post on this board, and the only parts I have edited out have been personal abuse of named posters who were not here to see what had been written about them.

(I have left nay's and alan's mutual insults alone because they are both here. I haven't removed any of your insinuations and insults about me.)

If you can show me any way in which the removal of these words and phrases might have any impact at all on your climate change discussion, I'll be interested to read it.

[havelock]

Can anyone please explain why I have been subjected to such abuse from Marchesarosa and from rsmith77?

I think that I have been polite but questioning. For example, the obvious attack on any post that I have made seems to me to be unjustified.

Is this normal?

[jean]

Aug 31, 2010 16:43:37 GMT @havelock said:

Can anyone please explain why I have been subjected to such abuse from Marchesarosa and from rsmith77?

I think that I have been polite but questioning. For example, the obvious attack on any post that I have made seems to me to be unjustified.

I will explain as far as I can, havelock.

I agree that your posts are polite but questioning. But the marchesa is convinced that you are another poster she tangled with in the past, and that makes you fair game in her eyes.

If you look around this board, you'll see that you are not the only poster to receive this treatment. In fact, it's this sort of treatment that probably explains why this board has so very few people posting regularly on it.

I'm very sorry about it, and I cannot imagine why the marchesa thinks it is a good way to win converts.

I don't know anything about rsmith77.

Is this normal?

I am sorry to say that, for the marchesa, it is.

[marchesarosa]

Havelock's alter ego, lazarus, has just popped up on the BBC Science board, too, jean.
They must have been off holding hands in some Apserger's cyber holiday camp together over the Bank Holiday.

Bless'em!

Is this "Sockpuppet Variant Multiple Personality Disorder" all over again I wonder?

Or is that just me displaying the sadly prevalent "Confirmation Bias"?

[marchesarosa]

Why doesn't Havelock take his cyber buddy, lazarus, to this cyber hovel for an outing

trollhunterx.webs.com/apps/profile/46856668/?referer=AffiliateNetwork

They can commiserate with JoeK over the paradox of "free speech".

[jean]

But marchesa, we know that lazarus and havelock are the same poster.

It's just that neither of them is Spir-An.

And since havelock came here as a result of an invitation from you on the Science board, you can hardlybe surprised to see him posting there.

[marchesarosa]

Ah, so I was right. Lazarus is Havelock!

Why are Asperger's cases so easy to spot? It's something to do with their
perfectly dogged persistence and lastworditis. But basically it's because
its dead easy when you have the template of Spir-an to guide you!

Spir-an made quite an impression on some of us.
It's quite easy to spot him but I won't give the game away as to how.