GTWT

Yep, you posted it and I responded to it. MeanGreenDork has posted links to the investigations that found no wrong-doing just above this. So, Lonnie, what were the lies told to keep government grants? Hint - it ain't 'climategate' but keep trying. Oh! It has nothing to do with your government instructor. That's irrelevant.

Hi Lonnie, Any specific examples of scientists caught lying to keep their government grants? Let's discuss specific instances rather than the rather cowardly attempt to blacken an entire profession.

Ah Stix....., You do understand that the methane in cow farts was derived from the plants the cows ate. The plants obtained the carbon in the methane from the atmosphere. The carbon in the atmosphere came from some previous cow fart (et al.). Cow farts aren't the problem. Again, the problem is the release of fossil C by human activities.

1. Science isn't always right, but it is still right much more often than pseudoscience. 2. Of course there's a human element in science just like in all human areas. Science, however, has some advantages over some of those other fields. Most importantly, science is a very public endeavor - the work is published. It's reviewed by other scientists, published in journals that value their reputation highly, and then that work is open to the critique of other experts in that field. 3. John Kerry is a politician, not a scientist. He doesn't control the grant process in the NIH or the NSF. Grants proposals are reviewed by panels of scientists. These scientists rate the proposal - not John Kerry. 4. As for the peer-review process. Every article submitted to a scientific journal, every proposal submitted to NSF, is reviewed by scientists expert in the relevant field. What would you suggest would be better? To have climate articles reviewed by you, Rick, & Lonnie?

Really Rick, the Free Republic? Dude the hullabaloo about a new ice age was precipitated by an article in TIME. Time isn't a scientific journal. TIME isn't peer reviewed. Read the American Meterological Society article I posted for you. Continuing to refer to old canards like, "well, in the 70s the scientists were saying the earth was cooling..." doesn't help your argument. It just makes you seem to be regurgitating silliness you're heard on O'Reilly, Watts-Up-With-That, and in (God help you) the Free Republic. Science isn't always easy to understand. Science doesn't always tell you what you want to hear. Science is, however, our best approximation to reality.

You're kidding, right? No one has ever suggested that short-term CO2 exchange by organisms has an effect on atmospheric greenhouse levels. The pronlem is the release of CO2 sequestered in fossil fuels.

Sorry, UNT90, I read your article about John Kerry. No where does he suggest that anthropogenic climate change will end the world. Exaggerate much?

KingDL, You may want to ask the American Physical Society if CO2 is a greenhouse gas - http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

Sorry, Rick but that old wive's tale needs to be put to rest. Here's from the American Meterological Society: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

UNT90, no one is saying the world's ending. That kind of garbage comes from the religious kooks. What the scientists are saying is that anthropogenic climate change threatens our way of life - that our kids will live in a degraded world. That seems simple enough.

Yeah, that same link says the earth hasn't warmed in 16+ years yet the evidence says the past decade is the hottest on record - http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/03/past-decade-hottest-on-record-marked-by-extremes-un/ Notice the quote is from FOX NEWS? I wanted to link to something the Tea Party folks here would understand. Now, if your link got that part so wrong, why should we any attention to anything else that's on there?

I hope western culture survives into the 26th Century. Science denial isn't the way to get there.

Are you saying that blood-letting was based on the scientific method? Medicine in the 16th century was mostly art, not science.

UNT90, it would be naive to suggest that all scientists are honest. Science is a human activity and humans sometimes fail. But science is a unique culture. Truth is precious in science. A few lie - when they do the nature of science means that sooner or later the lie will be discovered - usually by a scientist. It's a rare scientist who is willing to risk the humiliation and ostracization of being caught in a lie. As for the money, if money was what motivated an individual he/she would never have become a scientist. Scientists are driven, not by the dollar, but by the esteme of colleagues and by the excitement of discovery.

Jesus wept.

Sure, follow the money Lonnie. You'll see that climate scientists include many government scientists whose work is not funded by grants. They can go where ever their research leads them. Their research leads them to conclude that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We're releasing massive amounts of CO2 by burning fossil fuels. The observed rise in both surface and ocean temperatures correlates strongly with levels of CO2 release. Follow the money on many of the organizations orchestrating science denial and you'll find funding by big coal, oil, and gas. "Hell, I say, look at shitholes like Cleveland and Detroit. People still live there. People still live all over the dirty, polluted Northeast. I've been to Mexico City with my wife. Dirty and polluted...all 22 million+ of them. Still able to reproduce and make a living with all of that smog and garbage." Lonnie, what the hell is this supposed to say? That we should be happy about the prospect of living in a degraded environment? The Fake Lonnie Finch has produced one of the silliest, most insulting posts I have ever read. That ain't easy.

Two issues have been raised on this thread that should be addressed: the ‘hockey stick’ controversy and climategate’. The ‘hockey stick’ refers to the iconic graph showing a dramatic increase in global surface temperatures beginning about 150 years ago. Climate science deniers have criticized the statistics behind the graph, suggesting that the use of proxy data for early periods of the analysis were inappropriate & may reflect an attempt by scientists to deliberately mislead. The data, the statistical analyses, and the interpretations were reviewed by several independent panels including the National Research Council which was asked by Congress to investigate the science behind the controversy. The NRC had minor quibbles about the statistics but produced a report that was generally supportive of the original work and of the ‘hockey stick’. The second controvery – Climategate – concerns an attack on the integrity of science and scientists. A hacker stole about 1,000 emails and a mass of other files from the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University. Most of the emails were written by or addressed to Dr. Philip Jones (Director of the CRU), Dr. Timothy Osborn (a climate scientist at CRU), Dr. Keith Briffa (a climate scientist at CRU who does tree ring analyses), and Dr. Mike Hulme (Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research). The hacked emails were cherry-picked, taken out of context, and published on science denial blogs around the world. An example of an email that gave the critics glee was from Dr. Kevin Trenbert which said, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t" was interpreted to suggest that Dr. Trenbert was expressing doubt about the data supporting global warming. However, if you actually read the discussion containing this message you will understand that the point concerned a need for better monitoring of energy flow in short-term climate variability. Did the anti-science bloggers purposefully mischaracterize the email? Surely not. An investigation by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee found, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". An independent review of the evidence by the Science Assessment Panel found, "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." Numerous other reviews reached similar conclusions. The truth however matters little to ideologues bent on using ‘climategate’ to undermine confidence in climate science and climate scientists. They’re willing to spread old canards knowing that so many of the public are ignorant about science and are unlikely to catch them in their lies.

Hi Rick, I'd really like to understand why you believe climate change science is a hoax. Is it because you are in posession of better data? Or better analyses? Skepticism is good. There's nothing wrong with keeping an open mind & refusing to buy unproven conclusions. But your doubt should be tentative & you should be willing to consider that maybe the other guy is right. Otherwise you're basing your arguments on ideology - not science. Keep green!

Confused - as usual. Is Shanbourn at Stillwater. If so why is a OSU walk-on of concern to UNT fans?

Yes.

I was amazed how many UNT fans - at least on this board - hated Coach Dickey, even to the point of denigrating the success of the program. In my opinion those fans soon got what they deserved.

I wish the SunBelt & it's former teams well but I don't want to have anything to do with them. That is a chapter in UNT's past that I want to leave far behind.

Prediction. Coach Mac completes his new contract, decides it's time to retire, & is replaced by Coach Canales.

Yes. Very articulate. His post demonstrates the value of a liberal arts education. [Though, not trying to be picky but it's William Shakespeare, not Williams Shakespeare. Maybe one of those darned literature courses would have been useful.]

The arrogant idiot should have been fired.