LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Scientists: Mediterranean Sea “Not Warming” The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE
17 JUN 2009 From the ongoing OGS conference on Observational Oceanography in Trieste, Italy – Rome, 17 June (Apcom) – No water warming processes are likely to be undergoing in the Mediterranean. It’s one of the preliminary results obtained under MedArgo, the “sister project”, coordinated by OGS [the Italian National Institute on Oceanography and Experimental Geophysics].
MedArgo deals specifically with the Mediterranean Sea and surrounding countries and is part of EuroArgo, the European component of the international Argo project.
mkpdavies no longer posts on this forum
(my bold)On the basis of information gathered so far, all we can anticipate is that at the moment there are no processes warming the waters. But we will have more details only at the end of the project, with the final data in hand.”
Note this is a quote of what a scientist is supposed to have said from a ludicrously sceptic nutter website - and where & when will the expert quoted publish these results in a peer-reviewed journal?
Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.
Denial is a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality.
Everybody is entitled to have their opinions but there are facts that truly cannot be opined about.Originally Posted by Clippo
One such fact is that the quote comes from "Apcom", an Italian associate company of Associated Press. Another fact is that the quote is by Pierre-Marie Poulain, Ph.D is in charge of co-ordinating MedArgo, and has freely chosen to discuss MedArgo with the press. It has even been up to Mr Poulain to mention the fact of "no warming processes" as the one thing he could "anticipate". Talk about having a strong scientific consensus there...
I find it ludicrous to criticize Poulain for not having published the results in a peer-reviewed journal first. Argo has been going on for many years. Poulain has published several papers in his field of research, and also a book. International conferences is where data is presented and discussed before articles get written. Etc etc.
In any case....I fully take "nutter" as a compliment to my website from anybody apparently lacking the ability to read.
Could you please read with more care before commenting so harshly?
The quote comes from a mainstream press release (by Apcom, an Italian associate company to Associated Press). It comes from the MedArgo co-ordinator, author of several papers and a book in his field of expertise. It was him the one selecting "no warming processes" as the one thing he could mention already. Talk about having a broad scientific consensus...
Lamenting that he's not been waiting for some future peer-review publication is absurd, given the multi-year nature of the Argo project. What would be next, holding all scientific conferences behind closed doors?
It is also insulting to all Argo scientific managers, and researchers, since it has been them to decide who would be the best co-ordinators.
Can you please excuse clippo because he gets so mixed up,we try to cut him a little slack and humour him most times. Bless 'im.
let me thank mkpdavies then for making me discover this forum...I may be tempted to intervene outside the climate/energy area, you know
I presume that it is easy enough to plot temperatures on a graph to see if the Med is warming, cooling or doing nothing. I also presume that you, Clippo, have this data to back up your postion as you seem to have dismissed the original statement and put it down to a flight of fancy from some "ludicrously sceptic nutter website".
Frankly, and I do like conversing with you, I find your style of argument hard to follow. You pull out all sorts of cr@p that is sometimes peer reviewed and sometimes not, and you expect us to believe it all. But when someone pulls out something you disagree with that is not peer reviewed you dismiss out of hand. So why should we take your non-peer reviewed ramblings as truth? Is it because you posted it?
My reference was to the Omniclimate website which may or may not be reporting the whole truth or context of what was said.
Mpkdavies has a phenomenal history here of only quoting links that he thinks or implies supports his lost anti-AGW cause
Too many scientists say things out of context which is then picked up by opponents and twisted. The only way to back up your claims in science is by the centuries old peer-review process.
Welcome Omnologos - you have much to learn
Hello 'pool - just woken from your little nap have you
Angelman wrote:-
Stung by my accurate criticism of your inability to read thro' comments, in the other thread perhaps?Frankly, and I do like conversing with you, I find your style of argument hard to follow. You pull out all sorts of cr@p that is sometimes peer reviewed and sometimes not, and you expect us to believe it all. But when someone pulls out something you disagree with that is not peer reviewed you dismiss out of hand. So why should we take your non-peer reviewed ramblings as truth? Is it because you posted it?
Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.
Denial is a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality.
Not at all. I am far too arrogant to worry about that sort of thing. And I didn't realise that you were trying to criticise me. All I was trying to say was, like here, someone posts something, you say its cr@p and we are supposed to take your word for it.Stung by my accurate criticism of your inability to read thro' comments, in the other thread perhaps?
Angelman wrote:-
I don't suppose that anyone will just take my word for it - just as I take nobody else's words without question.All I was trying to say was, like here, someone posts something, you say its cr@p and we are supposed to take your word for it.
The whole point is that AGW deniers, or contrarians or whatever, usually post material that only they think supports their minority and scientitifcally incorrect views. In the earlier post I was criticising you for, apparently, not having the ability to question the detail of such biased links, and, throwing the onus back onto me to explain it for you.
Deniers and like websites post so much falsity, and stuff that has been exposed time & time again, that quite frankly I'm not prepared to go over it again and again - it is simpler for me to call it cr@p - a term 'deniers' have used here before without criticisism from others.
All I say to you or anybody else is to examine all postings and ask yourselves simple, basic questions as to whether the content is rational or believable.
With respect to mpkd's first post link here, when I visited the link, I noted that website semed to me to only contain material which doubted the consensus view of AGW AND I questioned the implication, (for which I've not seen any direct statement about), that this ARGO research was somehow tied to GW.
(It's interesting to speculate that if the ARGO project is getting public money in research grants, do the deniers still harp on about the scientists only doing it for the money - a common fixation of deniers when the research always supports AGW consensus).
Furthermore, I am in no way questioning the scientific integrity of the members of the ARGO project - I just find it rather naive of any of them to draw conclusions when their work isn't actually completed.
AND interestingly, I have just found (honestly, after writing the previous paragraph), a posting in that link website by a certain Omnologos -
And another link to Omnologos which may,or may not indicate his 'politically' independent thought on matters Climate :-
Maurizio – Omnologos
Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.
Denial is a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks