Sat, Aug 23, 2014, 11:12 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Linn Energy, LLC (LINE) Message Board

feets_dont_failme_now 12 posts  |  Last Activity: 22 hours ago Member since: Sep 3, 2002
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • feets_dont_failme_now by feets_dont_failme_now Jun 15, 2014 12:02 PM Flag

    Steve McIntyre highlighted a response from the Institute of Physics (Publsihers of Environmental Research Letters) to a UK Times article reporting the suppression of a global warming paper submitted by Dr. Bengtsson. A paper which again attempted to document the less than supportive evidence observed temperatures provide for climate models. The paper was written by a well known climate scientist who chose the unfortunate path of publishing TRUTH rather than Real Climate dogma necessary for success in today’s Climate Science™ field.

    The article caught my attention because the reasons given for rejection are wholly unscientific and truly indefensible yet they are expressed as boldly as can be. No really! The author of the reply, Dr. Nicola Gulley, literally used the actual bold herself:

    "... Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side..."

    The reason Nicola Gully highlights for rejection is unique. Even though numerous papers showing the like have been suppressed, apparently everyone is already aware by now of the massive failures of climate models to represent observed temperatures, so observing said failure in a journal is NOT innovative enough.

    “As the referees report states, ‘The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low.’ This means that the study does not meet ERL’s requirement for papers to significantly advance knowledge of the field.”

  • Reply to

    Deniers fight EPA

    by redshoe77 May 31, 2014 1:53 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now May 31, 2014 2:04 PM Flag

    WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND
    TECHNOLOGY.
    MAY 29, 2014
    DANIEL B. BOTKIN
    Since 1968 I have published research on theoretical global warming, its potential ecological effects, and the implications for people and biodiversity. I have spent my career trying to help conserve our environment and its great diversity of species. In doing so I have always attempted to maintain an objective, intellectually honest, scientific approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavor. I have, accordingly, been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that this subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate. I have colleagues on both sides of the debate and believe we should work together as scientists instead of arguing divisively about preconceived, emotionally based “positions.” I hope my testifying here will help lead to a calmer, more rational approach to dealing with not only climate change but also other major environmental problems. The IPCC 2014 report does not have this kind of rational discussion we should be having. I would like to tell you why.

  • Reply to

    Deniers fight EPA

    by redshoe77 May 31, 2014 1:53 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now May 31, 2014 2:14 PM Flag

    7.
    ARE THERE GOOD SCIENTISTS INVOLVED IN THE IPCC 2014 REPORT? Yes, the lead author of the Terrestrial (land) Ecosystem Report is Richard Betts, a coauthor of one my scientific papers about forecasting effects of global warming on biodiversity.
    8.
    ARE THERE SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE STATEMENTS AT PLACES IN THE REPORT? Yes, there are.
    9.
    What I sought to learn was the overall take-away that the reports leave with a reader. I regret to say that I was left with the impression that the reports overestimate the danger from human-induced climate change and do not contribute to our ability to solve major environmental problems. I am afraid that an “agenda” permeates the reports, an implication that humans and our activity are necessarily bad and ought to be curtailed.
    10.
    ARE THERE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE REPORTS? Yes, in assumptions, use of data, and conclusions.
    11.
    My biggest concern about the reports is that they present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports, in other words, are "scientific-sounding," rather than clearly settled and based
    on indisputable facts. Established facts about the global environment exist less oft en in science than laymen usually think.
    12.
    The two reports assume and/or argue that the climate warming forecast by the global climate models is happening and will continue to happen and grow worse. Currently these predictions are way off the reality (Figure 1) Models, like all scientific theory, have to be tested against real-world observations. Experts in model validation say that the climate models frequently cited in the IPCC report
    are little if any validated. This means that as theory they are fundamentally scientifically unproven.

  • feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Jun 15, 2014 11:50 PM Flag

    Hey BFD Maybe we could put a wind turbine on it and that would give it the energy it needs.

    Seriously, READING COMPREHENSION: The original piece bolded the fact that one of the reason the paper was rejected is that is would be harmful to the Cause™. Sound like good editorial policy to you? or just gate keeping?

    The secondary reason was that "everyone knows that models diverge from reality" Nothing to see here, move on.

    Now I ask you, in what field of science, would a paper that shows every model developed FAILS would this not be of interest to that community?

  • Reply to

    OT: To Chicken Little Redster...

    by william_tarasen May 31, 2014 11:07 AM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Jun 1, 2014 10:43 AM Flag

    14. Some of the reports conclusions are the opposite of those given in articles cited in defense of those conclusions.

    For example, the IPCC 2014 Terrestrial Ecosystem Report states that “there is medium confidence that rapid change in the Arctic is affecting its animals. For example, seven of 19 subpopulations of the polar bear are declining in number” citing in support of this an article by Vongraven and Richardson, 2011. That report states the contrary, that the “‘decline’ is an illusion.

    In addition, I have sought the available counts of the 19 subpopulations. Of these, only three have been counted twice; the rest have been counted once. Thus no rate of changes in the populations can be determined. The first count was done 1986 for one subpopulation.1

    The U. S. Marine Mammal Commission, charged with the conservation of this species, acknowledges “Accurate estimates of the current and historic sizes of polar bear stocks are difficult to obtain for several reasons–the species‘ inaccessible habitat, the movement of bears across international boundaries, and the costs of conducting surveys.”2

    According to Dr. Susan Crockford, “out of the 13 populations for which some kind of data exist, five populations are now classified by the PBSG [IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group] as ‘stable’ (two more than 2009), one is still increasing, and three have been upgraded from ‘declining’ to ‘data deficient’. . . . That leaves four that are still considered ‘declining’‐ two of those judgments are based primarily on concerns of overhunting, and one is based on a statistically insignificant decline that may not be valid and is being reassessed (and really should have been upgraded to ‘data deficient’). That leaves only one population – Western Hudson Bay – where PBSG biologists tenaciously blame global warming for all changes to polar bear biology, and even then, the data supporting that conclusion is still not available.3“

  • feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Jun 15, 2014 5:44 PM Flag

    Sven you are truly a flamethrower in a field of straw men. Good Job.

  • feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Jun 16, 2014 5:06 PM Flag

    Nonsense. They have been touting Scary Projections™ based on their models for years. Even as recently as the last IPCC report. None of them have come to pass.

  • Reply to

    Deniers fight EPA

    by redshoe77 May 31, 2014 1:53 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now May 31, 2014 2:10 PM Flag

    1.
    I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences . However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible.
    2.
    My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are "scientific-sounding" rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting
    their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen
    usually think.
    3.
    HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.
    4.
    IS CLIMATE CHANGE VERY UNUSUAL? No, it has always undergone changes.
    5.
    ARE GREENHOUSE GASES INCREASING? Yes, CO2 rapidly.
    6.
    IS THERE GOOD SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON CLIMATE CHANGE? Yes, a great deal of it.

  • Reply to

    Once upon a time

    by redshoe77 Jun 1, 2014 11:59 AM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Jun 2, 2014 3:54 PM Flag

    Don't be an idiot redster (I know it's hard)
    Background CO2 turnover is on the order of 10 Gt.

  • Reply to

    Time is running out

    by redshoe77 May 26, 2014 10:46 AM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now May 26, 2014 5:13 PM Flag

    Russian Academy of Sciences for one.

  • ...equaling 40% of US total
    This is up from just 2 bcf/d in 2010, making the Marcellus natural gas plays one of the most astounding energy stories of the last decade. The story keeps getting better--although rig count has remained stable at 100 rigs over the last 10 months, efficiency has been increasing and each rig now supports 6 million cubic feet per day in new-well production each month, a rate which enables the play's overall production to keep growing despite steep decline rates in existing wells.

  • Reply to

    Carbon dioxide sponge

    by redshoe77 Aug 19, 2014 1:13 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now 22 hours ago Flag

    "...Do you not understand this concept, or are you just being dense?..."

    No, he is just being a troll. Why do you feed him?

LINE
30.73-0.35(-1.13%)Aug 22 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.