# Climategate, AP Not Impressed



## Toronado3800 (Dec 13, 2009)

The Associated Press apparently analyzed the emails and isn't too alarmed.

Canadian source for an AP article


> LONDON  E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data -- but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.
> 
> The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harboured private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.



It goes on and on, has some pretty strong words to say about the fellas who ignored the Freedom of Information Act requests.  Greater transparency should come of this.

Of course if it doesn't maybe I can convince the Mrs. we need another Alaskan vacation to see where them glaciers have moved to with perhaps a layover in Vegas so I can check for snow on Mt Charleston.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 13, 2009)

Toronado3800 said:


> The Associated Press apparently analyzed the emails and isn't too alarmed.
> 
> Canadian source for an AP article
> 
> ...



Already posted this. Isn't it telling that they used what 11 reporters to fact check Palin but only 5 for this.


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 13, 2009)

determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.

Must read AP analysis of stolen emails: An exhaustive review shows the exchanges dont undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. « Climate Progress

And I read this is a local conservative newspaper also.  So, Limbaugh will be beating a dead horse for months to come...HA!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 13, 2009)

Ah, but the wing nuts will be beating this dead horse for months to come. 

Perhaps they can make enough copies to prevent another record melt of the north polar ice this year.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 13, 2009)

I heard this on the 24/7 news as well, that the emails (in context) do nothing to take away from global warming....

wonder who the thief was....  was this ever determined?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

> The Associated Press has emerged as one of the leaders in climate science reporting  just by actually talking to leading independent scientists and experts about major stories.



Riiiiight.....Clemenza and Tessio just vouched for Don Vito.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

If the Warmergate thread is any indication. All of the people who are in the belief that Global Warming is fake have already had plenty of orgasms and have been getting drunk in celebration since this first came out.

Guess their hangover is going to suck even worse when they find out this little tidbit.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> Riiiiight.....Clemenza and Tessio just vouched for Don Vito.



Except Tessio betrayed Don Vito's Family. So your analogy falls flat.


----------



## Maple (Dec 13, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.
> 
> Must read AP analysis of stolen emails: An exhaustive review shows the exchanges dont undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. « Climate Progress
> 
> And I read this is a local conservative newspaper also.  So, Limbaugh will be beating a dead horse for months to come...HA!



Then why have we have 11 years of cooling temperatures while CO2 emmisions have risen? Would someone please answer that question. I wanna know.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 13, 2009)

As the warming continues into the coming decade, we should all remind the brainless trolls just how badly they have been misled. Not that they will admit it, they are still insisting that WMD were in Iraq.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

April 1945 

Eva Braun rereads Mein Kampf and redoubles her resolve to make her stand in the bunker


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> As the warming continues into the coming decade, we should all remind the brainless trolls just how badly they have been misled. Not that they will admit it, they are still insisting that WMD were in Iraq.



What warming?


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> April 1945
> 
> Eva Braun rereads Mein Kampf and redoubles her resolve to make her stand in the bunker



Yes, because comparing people who disagree with you to Nazis is definitely not partisan hackery.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> > The Associated Press has emerged as one of the leaders in climate science reporting  just by actually talking to leading independent scientists and experts about major stories.
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiight.....Clemenza and Tessio just vouched for Don Vito.



And so the FBI said, Phil Jones said THIS and Phil Jones said THAT so I said, "Yeah! Sure!"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

LOL

Science of Global Warming

LOL


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Yeah...The media slugs, whose access to the "insiders" is critical to continue their never-ending story on manmade Armageddon, are the best ones to vouch for their trustworthiness.

I don't know if those schlubbs could be less credible if they hired Baghdad Bob himself.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> And so the FBI said, Phil Jones said THIS and Phil Jones said THAT so I said, "Yeah! Sure!"


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> And so the FBI said, Phil Jones said THIS and Phil Jones said THAT so I said, "Yeah! Sure!"



Actually, that's going to be Tony Blair next year during his interview with  a committee next year on the Iraq War.

Instead of Phil Jones however, he'll be saying "George W. Bush said THIS and George W. Bush said THAT" so I said, "Yeah! Sure!"


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 13, 2009)

Maple said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.
> ...



I want to know why you are so damned stupid. The last eleven years have seen record temperatures. Even 2008, with a strong and persistant La Nina, and a solar minimum, ranked eighth or ninth warmest ever. 

1998 had an exceptionally strong El Nino. So if you start you line there, you get a slight cooling up to 2009. Should you start your line at 1997, or 1999, you get a slight increase. But if you go with a median line from 1880 until present., you see a continued strong rise.

Your cooling is a product of dishonest use of medians. But then, that does not matter at all to you, does it. Much more important to disprove an inconvenient truth, than to acknowledge reality.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> Yeah...The media slugs, whose access to the "insiders" is critical to continue their never-ending story on manmade Armageddon, are the best ones to vouch for their trustworthiness.
> 
> I don't know if those schlubbs could be less credible if they hired Baghdad Bob himself.



Why do they need Baghdad Bob? They have Howdy Dooodeeee.........


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Remember everybody, supposedly now a few scientists represent them all. Remember to apply that logic elsewhere in your life to everything else.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Remember everybody, supposedly now a few scientists represent them all. Remember to apply that logic elsewhere in your life to everything else.


Nice mischaracterization....You're usually not this intellectually dishonest.

When the inner circle destroys information and locks out all contravening views, then even the honest scientists only have cooked information upon which to base their further studies.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> Nice mischaracterization....You're usually not this intellectually dishonest.
> 
> When the inner circle destroys information and locks out all contravening views, then even the honest scientists only have cooked information upon which to base their further studies.



Mischaracterization? No.

You expect the work of a few scientists to deframe all of the others work. THAT is mischaracterization Dude.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 13, 2009)

Maple said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.
> ...



Because your information is SIMPLY INCORRECT, and propaganda that lacks in any true scientific measure.



> Statisticians reject global cooling
> Some skeptics claim Earth is cooling despite contrary data
> by Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer, October 26, 2009
> 
> ...





> In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.





> Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.
> 
> The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.





> "The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."
> 
> The AP sent expert statisticians to analyze NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
> 
> Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.



continued here:  Climate Change: The Next Generation: Seth Borenstein: Global cooling rejected by statisticians


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > April 1945
> ...



The American Left has borrowed heavily from all of their heroes and role model: Hitler, Uncle Joe Stalin and Chairman Mao.

If the goosestep fits, wear it


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> As the warming continues into the coming decade, we should all remind the brainless trolls just how badly they have been misled. Not that they will admit it, they are still insisting that WMD were in Iraq.



ZOMG! Tell Phil Jones to Unresign!

The Fool forgot to read his own emails, which exonerate him


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > And so the FBI said, Phil Jones said THIS and Phil Jones said THAT so I said, "Yeah! Sure!"
> ...



Topic: Fake "Science" of Global Warming


----------



## Maple (Dec 13, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



I can tell you right now, that we have had the coolest summer in 09 than we have had in 15 years, and so far this winter is colder than a well digger's ass. Last year was no picnic either, freezing ass cold. So if you can provide that weather chart than do so, but I am not experiencing any warming in my area and have never felt or seen ANY EVIDENCE that man has created this global warming. I don't deny climate change but that has occured even before man was here.

Thousands of years ago the planet was covered in ice, that changed before man even came on the scene. You can't blame man for that thaw out.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

Wait. You idiots are still stuck on the notion that deminimus increases of 150 part per million of the trace element CO2 are responsible for "Global Warming"

That's hysterical!


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 13, 2009)

Okay, the Associated Press read all the frigin e-mails looking for a smoking gun and found nothing, except a bunch of arrogant intellectuals.  *Who here has read all the e-mails? * And yet, Lush Rimbaugh will be singing his fraud theory for years to come.  You know why?

Because you idiots listen to the drug addict and help him to become rich off of spewing lies.  You should all be proud!  You probably helped him buy a few drugs this week.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 13, 2009)

i don't think co2 is the ONLY reason we ARE warming, solar flare cycles definitely contributes to the warming trend.

I saw a science program on tv that actually explained how CO2 SAVED US from the ice age being permanent, soooooo God bless CO2 for that....!  but this only confirms higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere DO WARM US.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

In other news, TASS came out today declaring Josef Stalin as their #1 philantropist of the 20th century.


----------



## code1211 (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Nice mischaracterization....You're usually not this intellectually dishonest.
> ...




East Anglia emails discuss framing info so that the data supports the stated goals and also discuss methods by which calculations can be made using a "trick" to show warming.  We also know that EA destroyed their raw data so there is no way to check the calculations for accuracy.

We know that Dr. Hansen has retroactively adjusted every temperature before 1999 in a way that accentuates a warming trend adding a total of 1 full degree to the increase in warming.

We know that NASA, GISS and NOAA all share info.

So, we are pretty sure that HadCru, GISS, NASA and NOAA all cook the numbers and are all in agreement.

What else do we need to know?

Are there any other scientists in this field with greater credibility than these?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 13, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.
> 
> Must read AP analysis of stolen emails: An exhaustive review shows the exchanges dont undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. « Climate Progress
> 
> And I read this is a local conservative newspaper also.  So, Limbaugh will be beating a dead horse for months to come...HA!




How 'bout we say 'fuck whatever the AP says' and just see the fucking data?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 13, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah, but the wing nuts will be beating this dead horse for months to come.
> 
> Perhaps they can make enough copies to prevent another record melt of the north polar ice this year.



Data regarding short-term changes in worldwide temperature don't in themselves illustrate to what extent, if any, human activity is driving the changes. Show us historical parallels where conditions were similar save for the human element and how recent events differ. Show us a direct correlation between certain manmade pollution and a certain change in the climate (wither worldwide temperature, the ocean currents- whatever you claim its affecting) that is independent of other factors (the influence seems to be consistent even when other, natural factors change)


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> > The Associated Press has emerged as one of the leaders in climate science reporting  just by actually talking to leading independent scientists and experts about major stories.
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiight.....Clemenza and Tessio just vouched for Don Vito.



Change 'Dude' to 'Terral' and put that in a thread about the 9/11 Commission and I couldn't tell the posts apart.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 13, 2009)

Maple said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.
> ...




I would imagine that in a non-linear system as complex as the Earth's weather systems, there would be more than only CO^2 levels influencing local and world average temperature readings


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 13, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.
> 
> Must read AP analysis of stolen emails: An exhaustive review shows the exchanges dont undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. « Climate Progress
> 
> And I read this is a local conservative newspaper also.  So, Limbaugh will be beating a dead horse for months to come...HA!



You will find the wing nuts will cling to anything. Very rarely get into the substance of it, just the sounds bites.

Just like they cracked on about "kerry voted for it, before he voted against it" crap. Get them to read into anything for more than five minutes and they get bored...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

The reactionaries don't want to look at the data, they want to lie about the intepretation of the evidence.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The reactionaries don't want to look at the data, they want to lie about the intepretation of the evidence.



The Liars purged the data remember?

East Anglia Restaurant and School For Climate Fiction: "How would you like your data cooked?"


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 13, 2009)

so... just how many years does  it take for short-term changes to become a long-term trend?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> Okay, the Associated Press read all the frigin e-mails looking for a smoking gun and found nothing, except a bunch of arrogant intellectuals.  *Who here has read all the e-mails? * And yet, Lush Rimbaugh will be singing his fraud theory for years to come.  You know why?
> 
> Because you idiots listen to the drug addict and help him to become rich off of spewing lies.  You should all be proud!  You probably helped him buy a few drugs this week.



Fuck you and your fake fucking science you sycophant.

Phil Jones Resigned you fucking retard!

They left you to defend the "ManMade Global Warming" Fraud.  

Your friends all left the building jack off!


----------



## Navy1960 (Dec 13, 2009)

Top 10 Warmest Years and Temperature Anomalies (Base Period = 1951-80) in 1880-2008

*These rankings should not be taken too seriously because the differences between these years are much smaller than the measurement uncertainties (~ 0.1&#9702;C).*

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs

When you open the  page click on table, and  that is the first thing you see in table. As for the emails themselves,  I'm very well aware for  Dr. Mann's reputation for  stretching data to fit a conclusion, so I did not need an e-mail or -emails from him or other members  of the AGW community to tell me that.  My problem with the entire  so called  "consensus" on global  climate change is not so much the fact that the earth is warming, in so much has what is the contributing factor in that climate change.  I also believe that to mandate  draconian caps and restrictions based on a particular  conclusion without the consideration of others is not only dangerous it is not science and limits the posibility of  discovery.  There are many many things that we can do to be good stewards of the environment  and  also explore  the endless possibilites that new technologies and  making old ones better offer us.   Mandating on set of  rules, takes all that off the table, and you know what, even that doesn't work even within the environmental community itself. Let me give you an example I used in another thread,  bteween Arizona, and California  in the Joshua Tree National Forest. which by the way is not  a Forest like you would think, but rather high desert with scrub tree's , they are planning on building  a very large solar array to provide power for  our region. However, it is now  on hold because the  environmental movement has it tied up in court because if  land  use issues.  I also take issue with the fact that the  so called  AGW community turns  the oil industry into villians yet accepts massive amounts of funding from those same companies  that also  support climate change science themselves.  Whe I see things like this, and  the fact that one of the main spokespersons for the AGW community is  Al Gore who not only does not practice good environmental stewardship , but stands to reap a lot of money from his carbon trading company should all this  mandated legislation based on this science become a reality.  It does appear at least in my opinion that  "global warming" is  being used as the marketing mechanism to pass legislation that will enrich a narrow set of technologies and that is what I call limiting  discovery and  mankind, not enhancing it.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805431 said:
			
		

> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.
> ...


We can't, since a lot of it has already been destroyed or is stashed in blatant disregard of FOIA law.

But the code for what is left is in the HARRY READ ME file, and there's no way that media spin can re-write the computer codes.

So, we'll most likely know for certain when coders get finished unraveling that one.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

code1211 said:


> We know that NASA, GISS and NOAA all share info.
> 
> So, we are pretty sure that HadCru, GISS, NASA and NOAA all cook the numbers and are all in agreement.
> 
> ...



Beyond this point, I see a lot of assuming. Not much knowledge. Just a lot of assumptions and grey area.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 13, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Phil Jones Resigned you fucking retard!
> 
> They left you to defend the "ManMade Global Warming" Fraud.



Which does nothing to strengthen either argument.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805479 said:
			
		

> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Phil Jones Resigned you fucking retard!
> ...



Except when you read the emails where they talk about "Hide the decline"


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 13, 2009)

are no other people on earth studying this? Does nobody else have raw data?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805479 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And "redefine peer review".


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2009)

Care4all said:


> I heard this on the 24/7 news as well, that the emails (in context) do nothing to take away from global warming....
> 
> *wonder who the thief was....  was this ever determined?*


Well the CON$ without any evidence whatsoever, of course, claimed it was an inside whistle blower, but the Russians are taking credit for the leak.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805487 said:
			
		

> are no other people on earth studying this? Does nobody else have raw data?


See #42 for a link to the computer code, which is a little more than half of the leaked information.

So far, all that has been looked at are the e-mails, which are in plain English.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 13, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > I heard this on the 24/7 news as well, that the emails (in context) do nothing to take away from global warming....
> ...



About sums it up...

....cons will believe anything they're told..


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

Let's see here.  Believe Dude (hahahahahahah) or believe AP's 'exhaustive review'.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2009)

Maple said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.
> ...


Every time the mindless drones parrot this lie, I ask them how the last decade could be the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement if we've been "cooling for 11 years. 

They never answer, they only run to another thread and repeat their lie.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > I heard this on the 24/7 news as well, that the emails (in context) do nothing to take away from global warming....
> ...


You really should be more careful about blatantly lying like that.

The original story *HERE* is the source.



> _*This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider whos now blown the whistle.  *_


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Blatant Lying is how Libruls communicate


----------



## Navy1960 (Dec 13, 2009)

*Dr. Chris Landsea*

Letter of Resignation from the IPCC
Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).* I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized*. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.


*I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field.* 

- Prometheus: Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC Archives

Adding his voice to what appears to be a growing chorus of scientists speaking out against the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, former astronaut and moonwalker Harrison Schmitt says that many scientists have sold out their objectivity for political reasons. 

In some very strongly worded statements, Dr. Schmitt lets it be known that he does not agree with the theory than man is predominantly responsible for global warming.  He said, I dont think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect. 
Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt calls global warming a âpolitical toolâ

Dr. Phil Chapman wrote in The Australian on April 23. "All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead."Chapman neither can be caricatured as a greedy oil-company lobbyist nor dismissed as a flat-Earther. He was a Massachusetts Institute of Technology staff physicist, NASA's first Australian-born astronaut, and Apollo 14's Mission Scientist.Chapman believes reduced sunspot activity is curbing temperatures. As he elaborates, "there is a close correlation between variations on the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate." Anecdotally, last winter brought record cold to Florida, Mexico, and Greece, and rare snow to Jerusalem, Damascus, and Baghdad. China endured brutal ice and snow. NASA satellites found that last winter's Arctic Sea ice covered 2 million square kilometers (772,000 square miles) more than the last three years' average.
Globe may be cooling on Global Warming | ScrippsNews

Again, discovery is the true nature of science, and  limiting that discovery based on so called consensus conclusions has little to do with science.  I remind you all that consensus  only until recently  said that Pluto was the 9th Planet in the Solar system.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> If the Warmergate thread is any indication. All of the people who are in the belief that Global Warming is fake have already had plenty of orgasms and have been getting drunk in celebration since this first came out.
> 
> Guess their hangover is going to suck even worse when they find out this little tidbit.


Guess again.

Journalists evaluating the integrity of science means nothing as they are no where near a position to make such a judgment.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

Would Phil Jones still have resigned if he read his own emails?

What a tragedy he could have averted!

Warmers make Thelma and Louise look uncommitted


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Guess again.
> 
> Journalists evaluating the integrity of science means nothing as they are no where near a position to make such a judgment.



So do those delusions of yours keep you warm at night?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

This just in!

The AP releases their findings on all the permutations and conjugations of the word "is", finds Clinton semantically innocent!


----------



## elvis (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Guess again.
> ...



Oh, you mean journalists are unbiased and have reason, other than Al whore won an academy award to back up their claims?


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Guess again.
> ...


What delusions?  Like your being a freshman in liberal arts and thinking that you know much of anything about science?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> *Dr. Chris Landsea*
> 
> Letter of Resignation from the IPCC
> Dear colleagues,
> ...



"*I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field.*"

Yeah, like that matters to the Warmers who go: Conclusion first, fake science to back it up second


----------



## Navy1960 (Dec 13, 2009)

The more interesting and potentially controversial result is that our data indicate surface water temperatures during a part of the Medieval Warm Period that are similar to today&#8217;s&#8230;&#8221;

&#8220;Although there are significant uncertainties with our own reconstruction, our work raises the idea that perhaps even the Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions need to be looked at more closely.&#8221;

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution: News Release : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool

The First Word in an Unfolding Story

August 27, 2009
Media Relations Office
93 Water Street MS #16
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Murdoch"s Herald Sun is hardly a reliable source, but your same link also gives this tidbit a mere 3 sentences later:



> "*Hackers have broken into the data base of the University of East Anglia*s Climatic Research Unit - one of the worlds leading alarmist centres - and put the files they stole on the Internet, on the grounds that the science is too important to be kept under wraps."



And then we have the Daily Mail saying this:



> The FSB - formerly the KGB - confirmed that thousands of messages to and from scientists at the University of East Anglias Climatic Research Unit were distributed to the world from the city of Tomsk, as revealed by The Mail on Sunday last week.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

Edthecynic, the Jews at Masada could have been inspired by you and your fellow Warmers who have decided to make a stand in the face of Infinite odds against you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Journalists evaluating the integrity of science means nothing as they are no where near a position to make such a judgment.



As if you are, you loony.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Journalists evaluating the integrity of science means nothing as they are no where near a position to make such a judgment.
> ...


TFF.  As a matter of fact, I am.  But, you don't have to believe me.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2009)

Maple said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...


In typical CON$ervative stupidity, the weather on your block is the same for the entire globe. 

Even though you asked for a chart, I'm sure you will ignore it and continue parroting CON$ervative "logic."


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2009)

code1211 said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


You KNOW absolutely nothing.

And that "trick" was to use REAL temp data. Only deniers would consider REAL data "tricky."


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


My link was to the _*ORIGINAL STORY*_, fuckwit, not to downstreamers like the Daily Mail or Herald Sun.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> As a matter of fact, I am.  But, you don't have to believe me.



As a matter of fact, you are not.  If you were, you would post evidence in a heartbeat.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> What delusions?  Like your being a freshman in liberal arts and thinking that you know much of anything about science?



How pathetic. 

Having to attack my real life status to try and prove your point. Due to the fact that your arguments by itself is neither valid nor sound.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Huh? Your link was to the Herald Sun..a blog no less (hardly a story)..

The irony is not lost on me that the Herald Sun has a reputation down here for being a rag...not only that, but Mr Bolt puts that story out when meteorologists came out last week stating that this past decade will be Australia's HOTTEST EVER ON RECORD...some irony there...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So the nation producing the most manmade CO2 actually has colder temperatures?

Why am I the last to hear of this?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> This just in!
> 
> The AP releases their findings on all the permutations and conjugations of the word "is", finds Clinton semantically innocent!





That's some funny shit right there!


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 13, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So the nation producing the most manmade CO2 actually has colder temperatures?
> 
> Why am I the last to hear of this?



Once again, you're too simplistic. Either you are being deliberately obtuse, or you are stupid, or the win is so important to you that you're not looking past your blinkered eyes...


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > As a matter of fact, I am.  But, you don't have to believe me.
> ...


Right.  I'm going to post evidence of my peer-reviewed publications and evidence of the publications (lettter, articles, presentations, chapters, and text books) and grant proposals I have peer-reviewed so that all can have personal information on me.

Take another hit from your bong, Jake.  All will be OK.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 13, 2009)

Maple said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.
> ...








Because your claim is absolutely 100% untrue.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...


More brilliant CON$ervative "logic." Air never moves, it just sits in one place on the globe forever.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

(pattinng si modo on her pointy head and saying) "sure, si modo, sure.  Here have a drink of cool water, then go lay down in a dark room for a while."

You are funny, I will grant you that.


----------



## Zona (Dec 13, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.
> 
> Must read AP analysis of stolen emails: An exhaustive review shows the exchanges dont undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. « Climate Progress
> 
> And I read this is a local conservative newspaper also.  So, Limbaugh will be beating a dead horse for months to come...HA!



but noted scientist Sarah palin said...on her facebook of course.....there really is no such thing as global warming.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 13, 2009)

Question about 'temperature anomalies... What constitutes an anomalies versus normal deviation?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 13, 2009)

Zona said:


> but noted scientist Sarah palin said...on her facebook of course.....there really is no such thing as global warming.



But I can see Russia from my house! It looks cold.............


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

But, Dude, don't be shy: you won the "Baghdad Bob Award for Reporting" the last four years in a row.


----------



## Navy1960 (Dec 13, 2009)

There is no real dispute that weather data from cities, as collected by meteorological stations, is contaminated by urban heat island (UHI) bias, and that this has to be removed to identify climatic changes or trends. In cities, vertical walls, steel and concrete absorb the sun&#8217;s heat and are slow to cool at night. More and more of the world is urbanized (population increased from 1.5 B to 6 B in 1900s).
The UHI effect occurs not only for big cities but also for towns. Oke (who won the 2008 American Meteorological Society&#8217;s Helmut Landsberg award for his pioneer work on urbanization) had a formula for the warming that is tied to population. Oke (1973) found that the UHI (in °C) increases according to the formula

GISS uses in the USA, southern Canada and northern Mexico an urbanization adjustment based on the amount of night time light measured by satellites from the station locations. Unlit stations are classified as rural stations. This does produce some adjustment and a reasonable plot of temperatures but as GISS notes, this is just less than 2% of the globe.&#8221;
The difference from their adjusted values and the NOAA no longer adjusted shows NOAA was misguided in their removal of the urban adjustment, with a net cooling of 0.2F in 1930s and warming of 0.4F near 2005. NOAA data adjusted to the GISS base period of 1951-1980.

*The net warming in the UHI adjusted GISS US data set from the peak around 1930 to the peak near 2000 was a meager 0.15C*. It may be assumed the same would be true for the world if we could make a similar needed UHI adjustment.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_AND_GLOBAL_TEMP_ISSUES.pdf

Joseph D&#8217;Aleo was the first Director of Meteorology at the cable TV Weather Channel. He has over 30 years experience in professional meteorology. Mr. D&#8217;Aleo was Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International Corporation and Senior Editor of &#8220;Dr. Dewpoint&#8221; for WSI&#8217;s popular Intellicast.com web site. He is a former college professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College. He has authored and presented a number of papers as well as published a book focused on advanced applications enabled by new technologies and how research into ENSO and other atmospheric and oceanic phenomena has made skillful seasonal forecasts possible. Mr. D&#8217;Aleo has also authored many articles and made numerous presentations on the roles cycles in the sun and oceans have played in climate change.

Mr. D&#8217;Aleo is a Certified Consultant Meteorologist and was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). He has served as a member and then chairman of the American Meteorological Society&#8217; Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, and has co-chaired national conferences for both the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association. Mr. D&#8217;Aleo was elected a Councilor for the AMS.

Joseph D&#8217;Aleo is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin BS, MS and was in the doctoral program at NYU.

Mr. D&#8217;Aleo&#8217;s areas of expertise include climatology, natural factors involved in climate change, weather and climate prediction, and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr. is a professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, specializing in climate change and the greenhouse effect. Balling has been a climate consultant to the United Nations Environment Program, the World Climate Program, the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In addition, Dr. Balling authored The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality. He is also co-author of the book Satanic Gases with Pat Michaels.
ICECAP


While the debate rages, perhaps there are a few out there that do have the ability to call into question  this so called consensus and still have the ability to debate their  peers on a professional level.


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

Zona said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So the nation producing the most manmade CO2 actually has colder temperatures?
> 
> Why am I the last to hear of this?


We have newspaper people on the payroll, don't we, Tom?....They might like a story like that.

See, Sonny?...It's strictly business.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Michael Mann: "Do you think that we can get the press to run some interference for us on this one?"

Phil Jones: "They will, if we have to redefine what press credentials are."


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

The lead reporter for this AP story is the very same reporter implicate in the climategate scandal.

He would ask the implicated "scientists" for feedback on how to respond.

Acorn "investigates" Acorn.

AP investigates AP.

Yeah...


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> The lead reporter for this AP story is the very same reporter implicate in the climategate scandal.
> 
> He would ask the implicated "scientists" for feedback on how to respond.
> 
> ...



I do believe such a accusation warrants a link. Otherwise, it's bullshit.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> The lead reporter for this AP story is the very same reporter implicate in the climategate scandal.
> 
> He would ask the implicated "scientists" for feedback on how to respond.
> 
> ...


I've peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate.

Damn, that's fun.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 13, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805679 said:
			
		

> Question about 'temperature anomalies... What constitutes an anomalies versus normal deviation?







Ask the 30,000 Europeans who died in the '05 heat wave.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> I've peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate.
> 
> Damn, that's fun.



I've peer reviewed this post and find it to be 0% accurate due to conflict of interest.

Damn, that's fun. Now I know how you feel. 

Still waiting for that link there though.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805679 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Red fucking herring.

How many people die every year from hypothermia?


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> Red fucking herring.
> 
> How many people die every year of hypotrhermia?



But that would involve using data from Scientists! 



> During 1979--2002, a total of 16,555 deaths in the United States, an average of 689 per year (range: 417--1,021), were attributed to exposure to excessive natural cold (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision ICD-9 codes E901.0, E901.8, and E901.9; ICD-10 code X31) (Figure 1) (4). Annual death rates were highest before 1990 (range: 0.3--0.4 per 100,000 population), then decreased to 0.2 beginning in 1991, except for an increase to 0.3 in 2000.





> In 2002, a total of 646 hypothermia-related deaths were reported, with an annual death rate of 0.2 per 100,000 population. The majority of reported hypothermia-related deaths (66%) occurred in males (Figure 2), but the overall death rate (0.5) was the same for both males and females. Fifty-two percent of all decedents were aged >65 years, and 50% were male. The death rate for males and females aged >65 years was 1.2 and 0.8, respectively. Forty-five percent of all reported deaths occurred among white males (death rate: 0.3), and 14% occurred among black males (0.5).



Hypothermia-Related Deaths --- United States, 2003--2004

Oh wait, can't trust that link. It's the Government.


----------



## elvis (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > I've peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate.
> ...



not that the mainstream networks have a conflict of interest.  you know, all those green energy ads they run all time.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> not that the mainstream networks have a conflict of interest.  you know, all those green energy ads they run all time.



I wouldn't know about the ads, I don't watch much television. However, I don't see CBS with any on thursday nights. (Survivor )

Though why would you only focus on the green energy ads put forth but not the influence of the oil companies and other non-green companies?


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

Cold kills 'thousands' in a week


Many pensioners struggle to stay warm in winter 
More than 2,500 people in England and Wales are likely to have died in the past week as a direct result of cold weather, health forecasters say. 

BBC NEWS | UK | Cold kills 'thousands' in a week

See how easy that is?

Now actually start to think a bit - mkay?

You wanna talks deaths?  How about malaria?  That sham-science fiction book Silent Spring has helped to kill MILLIONS.

Climategate Cap n Tax/CO2 regulation, due to its impact on emerging nations, could very well do the same.  Progress is GOOD - dirt-livin' poverty is bad, and it kills.


----------



## concept (Dec 13, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.
> 
> Must read AP analysis of stolen emails: An exhaustive review shows the exchanges dont undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. « Climate Progress
> 
> And I read this is a local conservative newspaper also.  So, Limbaugh will be beating a dead horse for months to come...HA!





Of course they don't.


Only the dopey lib apologists believe that crap.


----------



## elvis (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > not that the mainstream networks have a conflict of interest.  you know, all those green energy ads they run all time.
> ...



you said there was a conflict of interest to deny global warming.  I stated the other side.


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Red fucking herring.
> ...



Because in America, we turn on the damn heat pard.

The poor nations who don't enjoy the same quality of life, don't have that option - and CO2 regulations will make such an option even more difficult for them.


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...




They don't want another side - the climategate emails proved that...


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 13, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> There is no real dispute that weather data from cities, as collected by meteorological stations, is contaminated by urban heat island (UHI) bias, and that this has to be removed to identify climatic changes or trends. In cities, vertical walls, steel and concrete absorb the suns heat and are slow to cool at night. More and more of the world is urbanized (population increased from 1.5 B to 6 B in 1900s).
> The UHI effect occurs not only for big cities but also for towns. Oke (who won the 2008 American Meteorological Societys Helmut Landsberg award for his pioneer work on urbanization) had a formula for the warming that is tied to population. Oke (1973) found that the UHI (in °C) increases according to the formula
> 
> GISS uses in the USA, southern Canada and northern Mexico an urbanization adjustment based on the amount of night time light measured by satellites from the station locations. Unlit stations are classified as rural stations. This does produce some adjustment and a reasonable plot of temperatures but as GISS notes, this is just less than 2% of the globe.
> ...







And why would we exclude UHI? Since you seem to understand that dark asfalt ABSORBS heat you would also understand that the land mass under the ice that is melting WILL ABSORB MORE HEAT than the ice which reflects it.....Now hear is the real bitch.....Permafrost releases METHANE from dead plant matter and I thing we ALL know that METHANE is an even worse greenhouse gas. YES!!??


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 13, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805679 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What did they have a drought and have no water to drink? Die from famine? I never heard about a famine in 2005...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805679 said:
> ...



Yet more undeniable proof that cold sucks


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> you said there was a conflict of interest to deny global warming.  I stated the other side.



There is a conflict of interest in both cases. However, in this thread, the only side that was highlighted is the side you just stated.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> They don't want another side - the climategate emails proved that...



You truly are blinded by your own bullshit eh?


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

*AP&#8217;s Seth Borenstein is just too damn cozy with the people he covers &#8211; time for AP to do something about it*

Here&#8217;s a recent story from the Associated Press:

By *Seth Borenstein*, Raphael Satter and Malcolm Ritter, Dec 12, 2009

&#8220;E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data &#8212; but the messages don&#8217;t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.&#8221;

Look in the mirror, fools. It&#8217;s right there in the CRU emails:

On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:

Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
*It&#8217;s Seth again.* Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It&#8217;s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth



Watts Up With That?


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Your link gave me the main page. Try again.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 13, 2009)

Easier to die from hypothermia than Heat Stroke. 


So let's compare the % of scientists who believe global warming(climate change) 95% to those who don't 5%..........Now if that were an election result we would call that a MANDATE right? 


95 FUCKING %.......Get it through your thick fucking skulls. PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!!!


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> 95 FUCKING %.......Get it through your thick fucking skulls. PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!!!



Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Easier to die from hypothermia than Heat Stroke.
> 
> 
> So let's compare the % of scientists who believe global warming(climate change) 95% to those who don't 5%..........Now if that were an election result we would call that a MANDATE right?
> ...


Science is not done by consensus nor is it done by a vote or a poll.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 13, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Easier to die from hypothermia than Heat Stroke.



easier to add layers and retain heat than to stay cool


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Your link gave me the main page. Try again.



Scroll down pard...


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Scroll down pard...



I think not. Direct link.


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> *APs Seth Borenstein is just too damn cozy with the people he covers  time for AP to do something about it*
> 
> Heres a recent story from the Associated Press:
> 
> ...


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Now Sinatra, do you have an unbiased source?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Easier to die from hypothermia than Heat Stroke.
> 
> 
> So let's compare the % of scientists who believe global warming(climate change) 95% to those who don't 5%..........Now if that were an election result we would call that a MANDATE right?
> ...


How 'bout_* you*_ get _*this*_ through your thick fucking skull....


Peer review doesn't reproduce a scientific phenomenon on demand. Nor does it supply a static control or provide falsifiablility...All of which are standard hallmarks and acid tests for "settled science".


And, speaking of credibly reviewed numbers, I'm _*STILL*_ waiting for _*ANY*_ AGW hack to provide the independently verified statistics which show 95% of scientists throw in with the AGW cult.


----------



## elvis (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Now Sinatra, do you have an unbiased source?



Is there any such thing?


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Now Sinatra, do you have an unbiased source?



If that is your stance, then you must dismiss the AP climategate report - as it was written by one implicated in the very story of climategate...


----------



## Care4all (Dec 13, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > *APs Seth Borenstein is just too damn cozy with the people he covers  time for AP to do something about it*
> ...


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > *AP&#8217;s Seth Borenstein is just too damn cozy with the people he covers &#8211; time for AP to do something about it*
> ...


A journalist asking a second opinion of a scientist with respect to 'hyping' something in the mainstream press says a lot about collusion between the scientists and the press.  If the science is not strong enough to stand on its own, there is the press to take care of the rhetoric.


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...




No kidding.  The "reporter" shows his bias for the counter-opinion by the very nature of his opinion.  There was no reporting but outright advocacy.  He was asking how he should respond - that is as damning a statement as a journalist can make!

And Care - take care to leave your hands off my threads.  Thank you.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Care4all said:


> are you saying that seth B should not question the information he gets and should NOT have asked for this second opinion??  pleaseeeeeeee!!!


What do you think the odds would be of Seth continuing to get in on all the IPCC insider scoops if he found the CRU e-mails to be fishy, if not outright smoking guns.

Like I said from the outset, this is like Tessio and Clemenza vouching for Don Vito.


----------



## elvis (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > are you saying that seth B should not question the information he gets and should NOT have asked for this second opinion??  pleaseeeeeeee!!!
> ...



no, Tessio was a traitor.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> Like I said from the outset, this is like Tessio and Clemenza vouching for Don Vito.



Your analogy is still inaccurate. 

Also, Seth would have the biggest news story of his lifetime if he found such smoking guns. He wouldn't need the insider scoops.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > are you saying that seth B should not question the information he gets and should NOT have asked for this second opinion??  pleaseeeeeeee!!!
> ...


Right.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> no, Tessio was a traitor.



I've told him that twice now. Maybe he'll listen to you.


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said from the outset, this is like Tessio and Clemenza vouching for Don Vito.
> ...




Seth is a flat-earth global warmer BELIEVER.  He was/is not interested in "scoops".

And the fact remains he was personally involved in the climategate evidence - and should not have had any part in reporting on the legitimacy of the scandal therein...


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Seth is a flat-earth global warmer BELIEVER.  He was/is not interested in "scoops".
> 
> And the fact remains he was personally involved in the climategate evidence - and should not have had any part in reporting on the legitimacy of the scandal therein...



I do believe Seth believes the earth is round. Personally involved in the climategate evidence? You are really trying your best to get that nothing into something huh?


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Only after Don Vito was dead....Apparently, that plot subtlety is lost on Dogshitbiscuit, too.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> Only after Don Vito was dead....Apparently, that plot subtlety is lost on Dogshitbiscuit, too.



Except Tessio had betrayed the family and Don Vito knew he was going to do it. The family that Don Vito built up and asked Tessio to be loyal to.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 14, 2009)

I see no problem with a journo asking an opinion from an expert about the source....


----------



## Modbert (Dec 14, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> I see no problem with a journo asking an opinion from an expert about the source....



In other case, it would be alright to everyone. In this one? Not so much. Because it would mean one less than to make some bullshit over.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 14, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > I see no problem with a journo asking an opinion from an expert about the source....
> ...



The anti-global warming crowd would argue that grass isn't green, that the sky is not blue and that Bruce Springsteen isn't the greatest recording artist in the world.... heh.....


----------



## Oddball (Dec 14, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> The anti-global warming crowd would argue that grass isn't green, that the sky is not blue and that Bruce Springsteen isn't the greatest recording artist in the world.... heh.....


Oh, stop it.

If the same situation existed, whereby a given journalist who had his nose up Cheney's ass for ten years reported on the "credible" intelligence on WMD's in Iraq, you wouldn't believe it for a nanosecond.....And rightly so.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 14, 2009)

Dude said:


> Oh, stop it.
> 
> If the same situation existed, whereby a given journalist who had his nose up Cheney's ass for ten years reported on the "credible" intelligence on WMD's in Iraq, you wouldn't believe it for a nanosecond.....And rightly so.



Except that's not the same situation that you gave for an example.


----------



## elvis (Dec 14, 2009)

Dude said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



I guess it's true, he betrayed Michael, not Vito.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 14, 2009)

Dude said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Easier to die from hypothermia than Heat Stroke.
> ...







I think you may know a bit too much about "ACID" tests LOL!


----------



## chanel (Dec 14, 2009)

The AP had 11 factcheckers on Sarah Palin's book.  They had 5 on Climategate.

The Voice in My Head: Going Rogue 11, ClimateGate 5


----------



## Care4all (Dec 14, 2009)

Dude said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > The anti-global warming crowd would argue that grass isn't green, that the sky is not blue and that Bruce Springsteen isn't the greatest recording artist in the world.... heh.....
> ...



hey, do you have any, any at all, evidence that supports your ANTI global warming CULT, that is legitimate, without any bias ???

Is what is being reported by your anti global warming cult, being reported by UNBIASED journalists?


----------



## Care4all (Dec 14, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...



Perhaps.

But your cult has no proof of their own that is not biased....do they?  I haven't seen anything from the anti global warming cult out there that has not been manipulated and twisted....

just like the claim we are in a cooling trend for 11 years....it was all manipulated so that people taking your stance could have something to shake....

The figures they used for this, came from using satellite temps of earth and not the weather stations on earth....and satellite readings of our temps are KNOWN to be LOWER than the actual temperatures on earth....that are readings from weather stations, and they did this for just the decade and then used those satellite figures and compared them to the earth weather station readings previous to the new satellite readings INSTEAD of using apples to apples to compare their supposed trend of cooling....

IN OTHER WORDS they lied and manipulated the actual science to make their false case.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 14, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Not true. They'll believe anything that confirms what they already "think" no matter how lame and ridiculous the information turns out to be.


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 14, 2009)

Bottom line, the e-mails have all been read and analyzed and found to change nothing about the present understanding of climate change.  If congress wants to waste money on an investigation, I guess that is okay also.  They will come to the same conclusion.

But, because most of those who are arguing that there is massive fraud cannot read beyond a paragraph without asking where the pictures are, the furry and whining will continue.  I would still like to see an investigation into who and how the e-mails were leaked.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 14, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> Bottom line, the e-mails have all been read and analyzed and found to change nothing about the present understanding of climate change.  If congress wants to waste money on an investigation, I guess that is okay also.  They will come to the same conclusion.
> 
> But, because most of those who are arguing that there is massive fraud cannot read beyond a paragraph without asking where the pictures are, the furry and whining will continue.  I would still like to see an investigation into who and how the e-mails were leaked.



It was theft, there should be an investigation in to this theft to find out who did it and how they did it....it would bring more light on to the situation.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 14, 2009)

Having said all of that, I still am not a supporter of cap and trade.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 14, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


My cult?  What the hell?

Yeah, scientists are cult members.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 14, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So the nation producing the most manmade CO2 actually has colder temperatures?
> ...



Please, Thelma, explain the chart to me.  

The USA is the leading producer of Manmade CO2, yet the chart shows that it cools North America and warms Africa.

Post Bullshit excuse or ad hominem here:___________________________


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 14, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



So the restless Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster heads from the USA to Africa?  Is that what your "Science" tell you?

Can you call Phil Jones on your Gaia Phone and ask him to explain this amazing phenomenon to us?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 14, 2009)

Zona said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.
> ...



Is the Globe Warming because the Million Degree Heat is leaching to the surface?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMrxC-qEHb8[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 14, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Easier to die from hypothermia than Heat Stroke.
> 
> 
> So let's compare the % of scientists who believe global warming(climate change) 95% to those who don't 5%..........Now if that were an election result we would call that a MANDATE right?
> ...



Believe Global Warming....LOL

How does a Global Warming Believing Scientist make his bones, does he whack an SUV?

You found a cult that believes Man is Warming the Planet and they have no science to back it up


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 14, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> Bottom line, the e-mails have all been read and analyzed and found to change nothing about the present understanding of climate change.  If congress wants to waste money on an investigation, I guess that is okay also.  They will come to the same conclusion.
> 
> But, because most of those who are arguing that there is massive fraud cannot read beyond a paragraph without asking where the pictures are, the furry and whining will continue.  I would still like to see an investigation into who and how the e-mails were leaked.



ZOMG!!! Does Phil Jones know this??!  Maybe he should unresign!!  Did he read his own emails?


----------



## Care4all (Dec 14, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



good morning si modo,

 ohhhh, I was just facetiously reusing the word "cult" that is constantly said and repeated about those who do believe that man has contributed to this Global warming trend....

and if those who believe the scientists who say that man has contributed to global warming are a ''CULT'', then one can EASILY say that those who are part of the group of people that Deny that man made Global warming is contributing to our warming, are ALSO a CULT....

My main point, is that the anti global warming group, who are constantly reiterating the information they are told by their BIASED group of Scientists and journalists, are NO DIFFERENT, than anyone in the opposing group....are they?  They accuse their opposition's view as being biased while they themselves only use BIASED analysis for their own position.  

Do they really have legitimate, unbiased reporting on their point of view on the subject as they expect and require of their opposition?


I think NOT.  that's all I was trying to say....

Care


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 14, 2009)

You Warmers make Thelma and Louise look uncommitted but worse of all for you, you look stupid because your heroes left you all alone to hold down the Fort.

Phil Jones Resigned!  He's gone you poor ignorant Warmers! He's gone!  He Quit!  He was outed as the Biggest Scientific Hoax in History!

Yet you're going to continue fighting until there's none of you left, which is fine with me becuase I'm not taking any Warmer prisoners.

Earth has been mostly warming for the past 18,000 years. For most of the last 2,000,000 years it's been a fucking ice box.

We know that you want to use fake science to get us to surrender our freedoms and we're telling you now you can go fuck yourselves!


----------



## Si modo (Dec 14, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


First of all, I have no idea what the 'anti global warming group' is.  You are terribly misinformed if you think that there are scientists who conclude that anthropogenic CO2 does not contribute to any global warming.  I suggest you understand what the scientific debate actually is.


----------



## del (Dec 14, 2009)

well, if AP says it's true, who can doubt it?
  

i mean, it's the freaking AP, people, they knows everythang.

and yet, the raw data remains thrown out, but that's not a problem for the *scientists*


----------



## Care4all (Dec 14, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Ok smarty pants, with your infinite wisdom , let's see you explain it to me....then we will see if I can keep up with you, and your understanding of the Scientific argument!


----------



## Navy1960 (Dec 14, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > There is no real dispute that weather data from cities, as collected by meteorological stations, is contaminated by urban heat island (UHI) bias, and that this has to be removed to identify climatic changes or trends. In cities, vertical walls, steel and concrete absorb the suns heat and are slow to cool at night. More and more of the world is urbanized (population increased from 1.5 B to 6 B in 1900s).
> ...



Doran, et al (2002) conducted a study of temperatures and ecosystem response in
Antarcticas dry valleys. They begin by stating that
The average air temperature at the Earths surface has increased by 0.06°C per decade
during the 20th century, according to the IPCC, and by 0.19°C per decade from 1979 to
1998.
In fact, Climate models generally predict amplified warming in polar regions, which
would suggest that Antarctic temperatures should have warmed more than this in response to
increases in greenhouse gases.
However, Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming, they
declare that "our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data" demonstrated a net
cooling over the entire Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during
summer and autumn, when ice melt would be most likely to occur. A study of temperatures
and ecosystem response in the McMurdo Dry Valleys indicated a cooling of 0.7°C per
decade between 1986 and 2000.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarctica_white_paper_final.pdf

But a study led by Duane G. Froese of the University of Alberta concludes permafrost is far more resistant to climate change than previously claimed. The study, Ancient Permafrost and a Future, Warmer Arctic (Science, September 19, 2008), examines ancient ice, determined to be 740,000 years old, found in the Yukon. The permafrost has, indeed, remained permanent despite having experienced climate changeboth warming and coolingfor hundreds of thousands of years.

William D. Balgord, Ph.D., president of Environmental & Resources Technology, Inc., a Middleton, Wisconsin-based consulting firm, also doubts the models ability to reflect the complex realities of the geophysical world.

The 2006 Nature article is long on implications for severe melting of permafrost, predicted by the authors crafted model, but short on evidence that melting is proceeding at an adequate rate and sufficiently long time to set in play the positive feedback loop described by Chris Field, said Balgord.

What he and other pro-warming advocates ignore is overwhelming evidence of strong negative feedbacks in place, resisting changes that might disrupt global climate patterns beyond the envelope of natural variability, Balgord added. To cite another example, the Holocene [the current geological period that has existed since the retreat of the last continental glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere] has been firmly in place now for some 12,000 years. During this period, sea levels have not risen or fallen significantly from their current positions, clear evidence of a climatic still-stand.
Melting Permafrost Scare Deflated by New Study - by Bonner R. Cohen - Environment & Climate News

Listen I'm quite well aware of the UHI effect so much so that NASA/NOAA has to adjust it's data gathering techniques  in 2007 to account for it.  In fact let me cite you an example of how NOAA gathers data.  Take Calfornia  for instance. it gathers data from 2 stations, one in L.A. the other in Santa Monica, both UHI, and excludes data in its averaging from all the other 27 stations localted in rural areas that could result in a swing of temp. variations. Thesse variations  are at the moment show a net increase  in Temps that is higher than it should be because if that exclusion.  Further, even though the sun heats land masses UHI heating is significantly higher than the surrounding natural heating  of bare land including  the  top layer of permafrost.  Methane and  CO2 are a byproduct of  permafrost melting and I don't think I have ever indicated otherwise nor suggested that the impact of a release of massive amounts of Methane into the atmosphere would be a good thing.  

An urban heat island (UHI) is a metropolitan area which is significantly warmer than its surrounding rural areas. The phenomenon was first investigated and described, though not by name, by Luke Howard in the 1810s.[1] The temperature difference usually is larger at night than during the day, and is most apparent when winds are weak. Seasonally, UHI is seen during both summer and winter. The main cause of the urban heat island is modification of the land surface by urban development which uses materials which effectively retain heat.

Urban heat island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 14, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.
> 
> Must read AP analysis of stolen emails: An exhaustive review shows the exchanges dont undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. « Climate Progress
> 
> And I read this is a local conservative newspaper also.  So, Limbaugh will be beating a dead horse for months to come...HA!


but all those anti warmers who have not read all the emails are the experts and the AP does not know what it is talking about.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 14, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


I have no idea how I can explain a term you used that you have yet to tell me what it means - the 'anti global warming group'.  So, on that, I am at a loss.

If folks pay attention to the questions I ask of others (notably partisans for some reason), I will ask what a 'denier' denies (I have yet to get an answer on that, in fact just yesterday, one couldn't even articulate what he meant, but at least he tried and failed).  This tells me that one has no idea what the scientific debate is as the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion one way or the other with respect to the magnitude and/or the significance of anthropogenic CO2 on the Earth's temperature.  That sentence right there is the debate of the actual science.

Your telling me that there is an 'anti global warming group' of scientists, or even of those who are not apostles of the Al Gore rhetoric, does the same thing.  It is a term that has little to do with the actual scientific debate.

Now, these scientists involved in this scandal HAVE actually made conclusions about the magnitude and/or the significance of anthropogenic CO2 on the Earth's temperature.  Those conclusions have been based on correlations for years.  There is nothing scientific about that and those who know science have been saying that such conclusions are not scientific as they are illogical.  These same scientists have gone on to develop predictive models (and some others, as well).  However, almost all of those predictive models are not falsifiable which means the models have nothing to do with science - again.  

In fact, there are some models that actually are scientific, so that's a plus.  However, there has been other science done that falsifies those models.  And, ironically enough, these are the scientists that seem to be targeted for marginalization by this group in the scandal.

Smell enough for you?  It does to scientists.


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 14, 2009)

You people that are determined to prove fraud, please keep posting.  But the facts are the facts.  No frivilous and often cheap e-mails from arrogants scientist are going to change that.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 14, 2009)

Maple said:


> Then why have we have *11 years of cooling temperatures* while CO2 emmisions have risen? Would someone please answer that question. I wanna know.





CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > As the warming continues into the coming decade, we should all remind the brainless trolls just how badly they have been misled. Not that they will admit it, they are still insisting that WMD were in Iraq.
> ...





Si modo said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Always the dumb act!!!

In this thread alone you have deniers denying that there is warming. And they are merely parroting GOP hate media quoting morons passed off as scientists like Lord Monkton.

You have no scientists who have falsified anything. You deniers use a cherry picked year like 1998 and then claim that the U of East Anglia data is the only accurate data because it says 1998 is the warmest year and the American data says 2005 was warmest and 2007 tied 1998 for 2nd place. But now you claim the U of East Anglia cooks their data to hide the decline.
Or you deniers continue use Troposphere data that you know was doctored by LimpBoy's climatologist Roy Spencer and his partner John Christy even after Christy admitted that his own data matches the surface temp data once the correct sign for Diurnal Drift is used.
Or you deniers use data from floats that had defective depth gauges after the problem was discovered and corrected because the floats were reading temps at deeper depths than their gauges reported because deeper water temp is colder.
Or you deniers use tree ring data that is known to be wrong because it does not match direct instrument data. 
CON$ always take the known flawed data and claim that correcting the known flaws is cooking the data.


----------



## slackjawed (Dec 14, 2009)

JUST IN:
Big bad wolf reports grandma was eaten by bears.

That statement is as credible as this so-called news report.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 14, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > Then why have we have *11 years of cooling temperatures* while CO2 emmisions have risen? Would someone please answer that question. I wanna know.
> ...


Show me where I have.


> ....  And they are merely parroting GOP hate media quoting morons passed off as scientists like Lord Monkton. ....


As I've never cited Monckton when discussing the science, I have no idea what you are talking about.



> ....  You have no scientists who have falsified anything. ....


Oh really?

http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-302.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

Just two peer-reviewed examples of falsified models (only one is needed, and note that both are _before_ the apparent scandal).


> .... You deniers ....


What am I denying?


> .... use a cherry picked year like 1998 and then claim that the U of East Anglia data is the only accurate data because it says 1998 is the warmest year and the American data says 2005 was warmest and 2007 tied 1998 for 2nd place. But now you claim the U of East Anglia cooks their data to hide the decline. ....


Show where I've done any such thing.  I use peer-reviewed science.


> ....  Or you deniers ....


What am I denying?


> ....  continue use Troposphere data that you know was doctored by LimpBoy's climatologist Roy Spencer and his partner John Christy ....


So, peer-reviewed science is NOT valid in your amateurish mind?


> even after Christy admitted that his own data matches the surface temp data once the correct sign for Diurnal Drift is used.  Or you deniers ....


What am I denying?


> ....  use data from floats that had defective depth gauges after the problem was discovered and corrected because the floats were reading temps at deeper depths than their gauges reported because deeper water temp is colder. ....


Nope.  I just show peer-reviewed work which falsifies models.


> ....  Or you deniers ....


What am I denying?


> ....  use tree ring data that is known to be wrong because it does not match direct instrument data. ....


Nope.  I just use peer-reviewed science. 


> ....  CON$ always take the known flawed data and claim that correcting the known flaws is cooking the data.


Science, by definition, is not partisan, although I would bet you and others would like it to be.


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Dec 14, 2009)

slackjawed said:


> JUST IN:
> Big bad wolf reports grandma was eaten by bears.
> 
> That statement is as credible as this so-called news report.


I've peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate and credible.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 14, 2009)

Y';all keep talking shit, but you never even attempted to address TF's case. You have admitted that you are wrong.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 14, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1807576 said:
			
		

> y';all keep talking shit, but you never even attempted to address tf's case. You have admitted that you are wrong.


tf?


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 14, 2009)

THERE HAS TO BE A CONSPIRACY!


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 14, 2009)

> Originally Posted by Si modo
> *I will ask what a 'denier' denies* (I have yet to get an answer on that, in fact just yesterday, one couldn't even articulate what he meant, but at least he tried and failed).





Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...


Keep playing dumb!!!

You asked what DENIERS deny and I pointed out that the deniers deny that the Earth is warming, complete with examples from this very thread.
You, on the other hand, deny that anyone can show what deniers deny.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 14, 2009)

slackjawed said:


> JUST IN:
> Big bad wolf reports grandma was eaten by bears.
> 
> That statement is as credible as this so-called news report.



I have peer reviewed this post and it is 100% accurate and PFF


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> > Originally Posted by Si modo
> > *I will ask what a 'denier' denies* (I have yet to get an answer on that, in fact just yesterday, one couldn't even articulate what he meant, but at least he tried and failed).
> 
> 
> ...


 
However? Are the _Deniers denying _what the Flat Earthers have _denied?_

Or ARE THEY _Denying_  the Flat Earthers and their false claims that still have YET to be _Denied?_


----------



## manu1959 (Dec 14, 2009)

if in fact the earth is warming....and if in fact it is man made....and if in fact within 5 years the arctic ice shelf will be gone.....

there is no way for man....in particular the US alone to stop it ....

you would need to shut down manufacturing and the burning of fossil fuels worldwide.....today......

somehow i see mother nature reacting to this abundance of c02 in her own wisdom to correct this anomaly.....just as she did when volcanoes erupted and meteors hit the earth.....the earth will be just fine...man sure as shit better figure out how to adapt.....


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> if in fact the earth is warming....and if in fact it is man made....and if in fact within 5 years the arctic ice shelf will be gone.....
> 
> there is no way for man....in particular the US alone to stop it ....
> 
> ...


 

PROVE IT. Your comparison of MAN's impact to that of Volcanos...even ONE is rejected...

MAN is NOT that powerful, except in the relnm of NUCLEAR industry...but even *IF* we fuck up and blow ourselves up? 
_The EARTH would recover...and not even miss US after we're GONE..._


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

Come with me as we attempt to *DANCE ON A VOLCANO...*

*Nature is of more Import than anything MAN could ever be...*

*(Music by GENESIS)*


----------



## concept (Dec 14, 2009)

Why did the AP look at the emails but not the data?

It is the data that is the incriminating part.


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

concept said:


> Why did the AP look at the emails but not the data?
> 
> It is the data that is the incriminating part.


 
What data? It was destroyed.


----------



## Zona (Dec 14, 2009)

Associated Press reads ALL stolen emails on climate change and... 


Nothing....

Damn fox looks dumb.  Again.


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

Zona said:


> Associated Press reads ALL stolen emails on climate change and...
> 
> 
> Nothing....
> ...


 
Zona reads a thread and...

He looks dumb (again)...


----------



## Oddball (Dec 14, 2009)

concept said:


> Why did the AP look at the emails but not the data?
> 
> It is the data that is the incriminating part.


The code in the HARRY READ ME file portion of the leaked info will take awhile longer to unravel.

The good news is that there's no room for spin or "it depends upon what your meaning of the word 'is' is" semantic bullshitting in FORTRAN code.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 14, 2009)

concept said:


> Why did the AP look at the emails but not the data?
> 
> *It is the data that is the incriminating part*.


Since you are intimately familiar with the data, please post the "incriminating" data!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 14, 2009)

At the rate that Palin tells lies, appropriate.


----------



## Zona (Dec 14, 2009)

The T said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Associated Press reads ALL stolen emails on climate change and...
> ...



I heard you denied things.  I see its true.  They got nothing.  Global warming is real, but then again you think Mark Levin makes sense.  Yuck.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 14, 2009)

....as Baghdad Bob and Tariq Aziz give their testimony, as character witnesses for Saddam.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 14, 2009)

Dude said:


> ....as Baghdad Bob and Tariq Aziz give their testimony, as character witnesses for Saddam.



No evidence to present. Just name calling. Oh, Howdy Dooodeee..... You are still a puppet with a nose three feet long.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 14, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> > Originally Posted by Si modo
> > *I will ask what a 'denier' denies* (I have yet to get an answer on that, in fact just yesterday, one couldn't even articulate what he meant, but at least he tried and failed).
> 
> 
> ...


Show me where I have denied warming.

Since you chosen to edit out some very relevant information in my post (I can understand why, too as they falsify the models - that means the models are no longer valid, by the way), I'll include the entirety of my post.  





Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Dec 14, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > ....as Baghdad Bob and Tariq Aziz give their testimony, as character witnesses for Saddam.
> ...



Yeah...No evidence at all that the lead apoliogist at the AP doing the "fact checking" is their biggest warmist sacremonger hyperbole slinger, or that he has his nose firmly planted up the ass of the IPCC.

Nope...No evidence whatsoever.


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

Zona said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


 
Translation: "..._I cannot make any sense otherwise, therefore I must follow my instinct and live up to my Alinsky Ways as evidenced in my avatar to attack those Talk hosts that could kick my ass on their WORST DAY...because I am so insignifigant..."_


----------



## Zona (Dec 14, 2009)

Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > > Originally Posted by Si modo
> ...



This one is going down as the longest post in history.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 14, 2009)

Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > > Originally Posted by Si modo
> ...


Keep playing dumb.

Again, you asked what DENIERS deny, and THEY deny warming.
YOU deny that anyone can show what deniers deny.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 14, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You are the first to actually give me an answer.

Now, you've accused me of being a denier (as you personally define it); show where I have done so.  I've asked several times and you haven't.  I won't anticipate any support for your accusation as I know none exists.

Also, to recap: you said nothing has been falsified.  Yet the models that are actually falsifiable (thus scientific and not pseudo-science) have been.  Thus, there are no scientific predictive models that demonstrate doom if policies are not enacted.  That would be funny, if it weren't so tragic in how uninformed the proponents of such policy are in actual science.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 14, 2009)

there are people on this site that deny our planet is warming at all, and say it is cooling, not warming....like sinatra, PP, perhaps Dude and Code also...

and there are people that accept the warming but deny human pollution admitting CO2, contributes to this warming and believe the warming is due to natural causes only.

So there are 2 minds of deniers imo.


----------



## dilloduck (Dec 14, 2009)

people need to take their thermometers and stick em up thier asses.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 14, 2009)

Care4all said:


> there are people on this site that deny our planet is warming at all, and say it is cooling, not warming....like sinatra, PP, perhaps Dude and Code also...
> 
> and there are people that accept the warming but deny human pollution admitting CO2, contributes to this warming and believe the warming is due to natural causes only.
> 
> So there are 2 minds of deniers imo.


Speaking only for myself, it's been established that the warmest decade  of the last 100 years was in the '30s, not the last ten years. NASA has admitted as much.  SOURCE Likewise, the general trend has been slightly downward since 1998. That's just the way it is.

One of the biggest gaping holes in the _*hypothesis *_ that man's industrial activities are to blame for the warming of the last 70 years, and much of the past 20 in particular, is that not a one of the IPCC warmists can quantify, with any reasonable certainty, how much those activities are to blame.... If you can't come up with even a loose approximation of how much X or Y is a determining factor in any equation, then the supposition is flawed from the outset. That's a rule of both mathematics and logic.

Of course, as I have also held all along, the semantics of the warmists are the biggest giveaway that they're probably not on the level. Not the least of which is the term "denier" (i.e. holocaust denier) being tossed around to smear anyone and everyone who dares to question the veracity of the doomsayers.

I'll thank you to ask me about how I think about this next time, m'kay?


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 14, 2009)

Dude said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > there are people on this site that* deny our planet is warming at all,* and say it is cooling, not warming....like sinatra, PP, perhaps Dude and Code also...
> ...


Your turn to play dumb. Care is clearly referring to the WHOLE GLOBE with the words "our planet."
And there you are again in typical CON$ervative fashion, though you will probably deny your CON$ervative habits, lying by half truth. The CON$ervative MO is to leave out critical information, AKA trying to lie to the level of ignorance of your victim.

In this case you left out that the NASA admissions were for the US temps and not GLOBAL temps. Your own link admits that fact, but somehow it didn't make it into your post. 1999 to 2008 is still the warmest decade GLOBALLY in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Again I ask, if the trend was downward (cooler) since 1998, as you falsaely claim, how could 1999 to 2008 be the warmest decade?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 15, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Again I ask, if the trend was downward (cooler) since 1998, as you falsaely claim, how could 1999 to 2008 be the warmest decade?


Because it wasn't the warmest decade...The 1930s are still the title holder as the warmest decade.

But all of your arrogant asshat bluster aside, _*what evidence would you accept that your half-baked Malthusian science fiction hypothesis  was wrong?*_


----------



## Chris (Dec 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Again I ask, if the trend was downward (cooler) since 1998, as you falsaely claim, how could 1999 to 2008 be the warmest decade?
> ...



Wrong....the 30s were the warmest decade in the U.S., not the world.

How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature? Part of the "answer" is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far. Figure 1 compares the temperature history in the U.S. and the world for the past 120 years. The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. Global temperature, in contrast, had passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25 years.

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 15, 2009)

The Day After Tomorrow Cult, which blindly follows Reverend Al Gore and his Gospel of the Death of Gaia by the Wickedness of Man has failed to prevent adequate evidence supporting their claims. With great assertions comes a great burden of proof. That burden has not been met, and all we are shown is very few data points regarding an incredibly complex non-linear system with no real explanation of how these human activities are to so greatly upset a system that we barely even grasp.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > there are people on this site that deny our planet is warming at all, and say it is cooling, not warming....like sinatra, PP, perhaps Dude and Code also...
> ...


Your "source" has a rather creative way of "reporting" the NASA data, which can be found on NASA's website:

NASA - 2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year

And the "source" of your "source" is an Exxon backed right wing loon, pretty damn funny stuff. 

Think Progress » Exxon-Backed Pundit Compares Gore To Nazi Propagandist


----------



## Ravi (Dec 15, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Oops...I see you already called him on his hackery.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 15, 2009)

Scarfetta and West did in fact apportion the warming between mankind and natural causes with mankind bearing the brunt of the blame and the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky drawing Lemons. When you look into their methodology their report says, "because we say so"

Pretty convincing stuff.


----------



## jodylee (Dec 15, 2009)

Maple said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.
> ...



Time lag, temperature precedes Co2, if the temp goes up the next ten years or so the co2 will start falling from the last 10 years of cooling, juswt like the sea takes a few hours to warm. and if you don't belive temperature precedes Co2 then stick a glass of water in the sun and see the Co2 bubbles collect on the side, now imagine that glass is the sea.


----------



## Navy1960 (Dec 15, 2009)

BEIJING  China accused developed countries Tuesday of backsliding on what it said were their obligations to fight climate change and warned that the U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen had entered a critical stage.

In sharp comments made as the atmosphere at the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen grows more divisive, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said there had been "some regression" on the part of developed countries on their position regarding financial support.

The change in their position "will hamper the Copenhagen conference," Jiang told a regular news conference in Beijing.

China and the United States  the world's top two carbon polluters  have been at odds in Copenhagen.
The Associated Press: China accuses developed countries on climate

You do see why this is not going to ever work don't you? China holds a large majority of US and world debt however China wants the US to basically go into deeper debt with China by borrowing money to give back in terms of  helping China  realize Climate Change goals that they will NOT commit too. If the US and the rest of the developed world decided to move ahead with such draconian measures based on a set of Scientific conclusions to the exclusion of others, then they do so at their own economic peril.   China  nor India have shown any signs  of slowing production  coal fired plants and in fact are still building them at a record pace.  That is the fallacy in legislation that seeks to reduce CO2 emissions even if the US and other nations should decide  to reduce  CO2 emissions without  China and  India,  you have basically accomplished nothing other than slice your economic throats all in the name of  scientific conclusions that may or may not be true.   One other thing of note here,  there are things this nation can do, especially with energy  that other nations are doing. Take France with nuclear, or Brazil ,  and now yes even India and it's recent commitment to build many new nuclear reactors in that nation.  All it takes is the commitment to do so, rather than this focus on the science and marketing of  global warming.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Again I ask, if the trend was downward (cooler) since 1998, as you falsaely claim, how could 1999 to 2008 be the warmest decade?
> ...


Again in typical CON$ervative fashion, when caught in a lie you just keep repeating the lie.

Your own source link admits that the 1930s were the warmest decade for the USA. The USA is not the whole globe. Admit it, the GOP hate media you parrot successfully lied to your level of ignorance.

As far as what evidence would convince me I was wrong, it would be REAL evidence, not deliberately deceptive lies. When you CON$ try to snooker me with crap like 1934 was the warmest year, or we've been cooling for 11 years, or posting a graph of the Stratosphere as the Troposphere, etc., you CON$ actually convince me you KNOW you have no REAL evidence and your ONLY recourse is deception.

So now I ask you, what evidence would you accept to get you to stop lying?


----------



## concept (Dec 15, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



There is nothing any of us can say that will stop you from being an apologist.

If data from the scientist's OWN hacked or stolen emails aren't enough then there is no help for you at all.


----------



## slackjawed (Dec 15, 2009)

The hacked emails only highlight a problem inherent in a system where research institutions must hold a particular view in order to obtain funding. 
Throughout history, scientific issues have been questioned, as they should be. Science is always settled by science, not by political motives. Funding is settled by political motives, not science. The current system of funding science does not seem to allow legitimate debate. That is what I  see in the leaked emails. 
When science is questioned it is healthy, and makes the science stronger. When this questioning is stifled, science is  made weaker. This questioning can and should continue as long as there are those that have questions. Unanswered questions are the stuff that science is made of, that is the basis of science-questioning.
Those that resort to personal attacks, in regards to science (or any other topic), only show their preference for ignorance. Continued questioning only makes science stronger. The debate either shows that the view held by the mainstream is either strong enough to withstand this questioning or that  questioning shows that the view held by the mainstream does not stand up to questioning and is therefore bunk science. Science is a search for answers and real science is not settled by court cases or public opinion.
Science is supposed to be a continuing discussion and debate based on reproducible experimentation. Questioning science is healthy for the study of science. When one states that "the debate is over, the issue is settled", that person has abandoned science and entered the world of politics.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 15, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Is it any wonder guys like me stopped taking terminally foaming-at-the-mouth little demagogues like you seriously? 

I asked you what evidence you would accept and you failed to answer the question, with any criteria that could be nailed down. Then, you resort to the old time tested misdirection technique (which doesn't work, BTW) of  attacking the person asking the question with irrelevant sweeping generalizations.
_*
Now, what evidence would you accept?*_


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 15, 2009)

If the AP is not impressed, this conspiracy theory is "dead on arrival" as the republicans like to say. * IT IS GOING NOWHERE!*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 15, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> If the AP is not impressed, this conspiracy theory is "dead on arrival" as the republicans like to say. * IT IS GOING NOWHERE!*



Keep telling that to yourself, Thelma


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


Still playing dumb.

Your deflection question has been answered. It might not be the answer you wanted, but it WAS answered. Your easily exposed lies will never convince me, but are a testament to your level of ignorance in swallowing them so completely.

Now answer my question, what evidence will it take to get you to stop lying?


----------



## Liability (Dec 15, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> If the Warmergate thread is any indication. All of the people who are in the belief that Global Warming is fake have already had plenty of orgasms and have been getting drunk in celebration since this first came out.
> 
> Guess their hangover is going to suck even worse when they find out this little tidbit.



You remain either amazingly stupid or disgustingly dishonest.

Let's make it simple (again) so that you have a chance to grasp it or no valid excuse for continuing to pretend that there is no difference.

One CAN believe in Global Warming (climate is not static, so it's no stretch to believe in "Global Warming")

and YET NOT believe in ANTRHOPROGENIC Global Warming.

And the AP "analysis" is 

conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient, but not in the slightest bit convincing, objectively.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 15, 2009)

The Wolf has examined security protocols on the Henhouse and finds them adequate


----------



## Oddball (Dec 15, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


That's not an answer, that's an evasion. You've been given evidence, yet dismiss it out-of-hand with ad hominem arguments toward both myself and the sources I've cited, rather than the information itself.

So, what would pass your lofty standard of "real evidence"?


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


No, A lie is not evidence of anything other than a liar. Your lie was dismissed because you tried to deceive me by passing off the warmest USA temp as GLOBAL temp, like you were so easily deceived by your dishonest source. Your own link said 1934 was the warmest year in the USA. How stupid were you to either miss it yourself or to think a Cynic would miss it if you knew it was there?

Again, what will it take to get you to stop lying???


----------



## Oddball (Dec 15, 2009)

That's not an answer, yet.

What will it take for you to specifically define what evidence is acceptable to you, and cease blowing smoke in making this about me?


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> That's not an answer, yet.
> 
> What will it take for you to specifically define what evidence is acceptable to you, and cease blowing smoke in making this about me?


But it is about you when YOU try to pass off USA temps as GLOBAL temps to support YOUR lie that the last decade was not the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement. YOU said the 1930s were the warmest decade, not 1999 to 2008.

So once again, what will it take to get YOU to stop lying???????????


----------



## Oddball (Dec 15, 2009)

That's still not an answer.

It's OK to admit that your mind is made up and closed.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> That's still not an answer.
> 
> It's OK to admit that your mind is made up and closed.


I only admit that YOUR lies are not good enough to deceive me, so my mind is made up that lies are not evidence of anything other than a liar, and my mind is closed to lies.

Again, what will it take to get YOU to stop lying.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 15, 2009)

Claiming that I lie still doesn't tell anyone what evidence you would accept, which would lead you to consider that your hypothesis in error....Nor does answering that question with a question.

Besides, I asked first.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> Claiming that I lie still doesn't tell anyone what evidence you would accept, which would lead you to consider that your hypothesis in error....Nor does answering that question with a question.
> 
> Besides, I asked first.


Except you claimed your lie, using the USA temps as GLOBAL temps, was "evidence," which I rejected as valid evidence. That rejection of your very feeble lie provoked you to ask what evidence I would accept, so my answer of REAL evidence was quite appropriate.
Your continuing to promote your lie as evidence prompted me to ask:

What will it take to get you to stop lying???????????????????????????????????????


----------



## Oddball (Dec 15, 2009)

That wasn't the only point I made in the post in question, yet the only one that you're holding onto, nearly as though your life depends upon it.

You want evidence which you deem as "real", yet refuse to specify what "real" is to you.

Your failure to specifiy criteria as to what constitutes "real" evidence doesn't go away by calling me a liar, or placing a score of question marks after your answer-a-question-with-a-question attempt at deflection.

It's a really easy question: What evidence would you accept?


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> *That wasn't the only point I made in the post in question*, yet the only one that you're holding onto, nearly as though your life depends upon it.
> 
> You want evidence which you deem as "real", yet refuse to specify what "real" is to you.
> 
> ...


Well that should teach you that when you start out with an obvious lie like that, no honest person will trust anything else you say.

Trust not him that hath once broken faith; he who betrayed thee once, will betray thee again. 
- Shakespeare.

Obviously I deem direct instrument measurements as real evidence.

So again I ask, what will it take to get you to stop lying???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## Oddball (Dec 15, 2009)

Still doesn't answer the question.

I still asked first.

More question marks after your answering-a-question-with-a-question dodge still  doesn't change anything.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> Still doesn't answer the question.



You're still lying.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 15, 2009)

You have to forgive Dud, he's a victim of confirmation bias.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 15, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Still doesn't answer the question.
> ...


One isn't dependent upon the other for an answer to be given.

In fact, your accusation presumes that I lied, rather than made a hasty and/or misinformed statement. Indeed, it presumes those *ahem* assumed bad intentions as  default proof that you're right.

None of which answers the original question of what you consider as acceptable evidence, which may lead you to reconsider your position.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


After I informed you that your own link said the temps were for the USA and not the whole GLOBE you REPEATED your lie, eliminating the possibility of a "hasty and/or misinformed statement."


----------



## Oddball (Dec 15, 2009)

All of which  doesn't answer the underlying question, which _*still*_ doesn't change or lack relevance even if I admitted to lying.

_*What....evidence....would....you...accept?*_


----------



## Si modo (Dec 15, 2009)

Quit dodging, ed.  

Pathetic.


----------



## Liability (Dec 15, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Wolf has examined security protocols on the Henhouse and finds them adequate



Of course, there was _some_ data that suggested that maybe the henhouse door ought to be locked, but that data got suppressed.  This did not affect the Wolf's conclusion.  Several other expert wolves, asked for comment about this by AP, noted that the Wolf was unquestionably AND indubitably correct.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> All of which  doesn't answer the underlying question, which _*still*_ doesn't change or lack relevance even if I admitted to lying.
> 
> _*What....evidence....would....you...accept?*_


Already answered. Direct instrument measurements.

What would it take to get you to stop lying?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 15, 2009)

No, it's not answered.

Direct and lapse rate adjusted troposphere (BTW..the troposphere is the lowermost layer of the atmosphere) measurements have been taken , yet you insist upon rejecting them.

This alone suggests that you have a different criteria.


----------



## Liability (Dec 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> That's not an answer, yet.
> 
> What will it take for you to specifically define what evidence is acceptable to you, and cease blowing smoke in making this about me?



An act of God.  

The lying pussy to whom you are directing your energies, Edthesickdick, has no inclination to be honest in any way, ever.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> No, it's not answered.
> 
> Direct and lapse rate adjusted troposphere (BTW..the troposphere is the lowermost layer of the atmosphere) measurements have been taken , yet you insist upon rejecting them.
> 
> This alone suggests that you have a different criteria.


Again, that's not true. 

I only rejected the UAH Troposphere data that used the wrong sign for correcting for Diurnal Drift. I do accept the RSS Troposphere data  and the UAH data after the UAH data was corrected using the correct sign, but you deniers never use the corrected data, only the erroneous UHA data using the wrong sign because that is the only data that supports your bias. You deniers reject the RSS data and the corrected UHA data, so you are just projecting.

What will it take to get you to stop lying???


----------



## Oddball (Dec 15, 2009)

Finally!!


The "wrong" troposphere numbers are junk, but the "right" troposphere info is gold coin.....All, of course, based upon nothiong more than your particular biases.

IOW, you only accept the data that leads to the reverse-engineered conclusions you want to find.


Thank you for that rare moment of candor and honesty.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> Finally!!
> 
> 
> *The "wrong" troposphere numbers are junk*, but the "right" troposphere info is gold coin.....All, of course, based upon nothiong more than your particular biases.
> ...


There you are lying again. 

I said the Troposphere data that used the "wrong" SIGN to correct for Diurnal Drift was junk, and it is junk. That's why you deniers use it exclusively. You CON$ never use real data.

IOW, you are projecting again.

So tell me, what will it take to get you to stop lying????????????


----------



## Oddball (Dec 15, 2009)

I'm projecting nothing and not a "CON$".

There's no dishonor in admitting that your mind is made up and closed...Just go with it.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> I'm projecting nothing and not a "CON$".
> 
> There's no dishonor in admitting that your mind is made up and closed...Just go with it.


Still lying, I see.

What will it take to get you to stop lying?????????????????????????????????


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 16, 2009)

What will it take for you two bitches to take your little squabble over to the Flame zone or the PMS?


AGW has yet to be demonstrated

Both sides claim to have refuted the each the other, yet neither really has; the positive claim of AGW bears the burden of proof

That burden has not been met, as no testable, verifiable theory has been put forth regarding how man-made CO^2 (and/or other airborne pollution) can and does, in a non-linear system as complex as global weather patterns and long-term climatic conditions, have such an intense effect as has been claimed.

No systematic, willful conspiracy has been shown along the lines claimed by the 'Climatgate Conspiracy Theorists), who refuse to hear out any rebuttal based on the claim that 'the conspirators control the investigations'- just like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists do. However, they have raised valid questions as to how personal beliefs and bias may have effected the methodology and offer good reasons to investigate the lack of transparency in much of the research; in turn, this raises concerns about the way in which research is currently funded.

In the end, while AWG is still an unproven hypothesis, we *do* know that DDT is toxic, breathing car exhaust is harmful, and many drugs are getting into the water supplies. Once again, I ask why we don't focus on these issues, which have been proven time and again and can actually be addressed (unlike AGW, which if correct, is near impossible for the US alone to address).


----------



## Si modo (Dec 16, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1813124 said:
			
		

> What will it take for you two bitches to take your little squabble over to the Flame zone or the PMS?
> 
> 
> AGW has yet to be demonstrated
> ...




But to answer your question, we do not focus on those other issues likely because there are few political activists mouthing off about them.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 16, 2009)

Dude said:


> There's no dishonor in admitting that your mind is made up and closed...Just go with it.


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 16, 2009)

The case for fraud is "dead on arrival."  Lush Rimbaugh needs to find another band wagon to cry on, so that his elves make him a few more million dollars.


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> The case for fraud is "dead on arrival."  Lush Rimbaugh needs to find another band wagon to cry on, so that his elves make him a few more million dollars.



The case against fraud is non-existent.  Just a little helpful FYI.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 16, 2009)

Liability said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > The case for fraud is "dead on arrival."  Lush Rimbaugh needs to find another band wagon to cry on, so that his elves make him a few more million dollars.
> ...



You're a fucking moron. Those who allege fraud bear the burden of proof.


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1814158 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



No, ma'am.  It is YOU who retains the title of fucking moron.

Well, perhaps it's fucking imbecile, in your case.

Those who attest to the veracity of the alleged scientific data have the original burden, shithead.  Nice plodding attempt to shift the burden, but you are a schmuck; so you fail.

And since the e-mails clearly suggest that the data has been tampered with, it is even more critical to support the validity of the data if you expect anybody to proceed to "rely" on that data as any kind of basis to assess the merits of the AGW theory.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 16, 2009)

Liability said:


> Those who attest to the veracity of the alleged scientific data have the original burden, shithead.  Nice plodding attempt to shift the burden, but you are a schmuck; so you fail.



Damned, you're stupid.

If you claim AGW is real, you bear the burden of proof in relation to that claim.

Likewise, to claim fraud (as opposed to simply contesting the data/conclusions), you bear the burden of proof- you must proof fraud just as the other side must prove AGW.

It's not that fucking complicated. Two separate claims made by two sides. Each side bears BoP for their own claims.

Perhaps you're just too stupid to understand.


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1814206 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Those who attest to the veracity of the alleged scientific data have the original burden, shithead.  Nice plodding attempt to shift the burden, but you are a schmuck; so you fail.
> ...



Damn!  But it's YOU who remains stupid, obtuse, asshole-y and a complete imbecile!

No surprise.  I've read some of your prior retarded offerings.

If a proponent of AGW says it's real (what the fuck else a proponent would say is a bit of a mystery, of course, you idiot), then YES he does have the burden, ya schmuck.

And if I  challenge his stupid ass on his contention, then he STILL has the burden to back up his initial claim that the data is unsullied, you fucking moron.

There's no question about it.  You ARE too stupid -- 

to breathe.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 16, 2009)

Challenging the conclusion is not the the same and making a positive claim of fraud, idiot. 

Why are you right-wingers always so stupid?


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1814389 said:
			
		

> Challenging the conclusion is not the the same and making a positive claim of fraud, idiot.
> 
> Why are you right-wingers always so stupid?



Challenging the validity of the data relied upon by the proponents of AGW (especially where the challenge is based on facts revealed in the e-mails establishing at least the prospect that the data has been distorted and concealed) is a perfectly valid basis to raise the challenge that there has been fraud and thus require the proponents of AGW to prove up their data, ya fucking libtarded shithead.

Why are you left-wingers always so adamant when you are actually so fucking clueless, ya braindead fucktard?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 16, 2009)

you allege fraud. Prove it.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 16, 2009)

you allege fraud. Prove it.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 16, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > I'm projecting nothing and not a "CON$".
> ...


Still lamely attempting to avoid answering the question, as to what information you would accept which could disprove your hypothesis. Hence, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that your mind is made up and posting _*any*_ further information is a complete waste of time.

Oh, by the way, increasing the amount of superfluous question marks at the end of your evasions doesn't help camouflage the fact that you're a closed-minded political hack.


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1814449 said:
			
		

> you allege fraud. Prove it.



I allege that there is serious doubt about the scientific reliability of the DATA used by proponents of AGW.  The proponent has the initial burden.  Defend the use of that data in light of what the e-mails reveal.

If what you are _trying_ to grunt out is the question "on what basis can a claim of fraud be made?" then I again point out the e-mails to you.  Deal with it, ya fucktard.

You now know exactly what the basis is for the challenge to the authenticity and integrity  of YOUR data.  So, meet your intitial burden and stop being an evasive pussy.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 16, 2009)

> I allege that there is serious doubt about the scientific reliability of the DATA used by proponents of AGW.



So you're changing your story now that you've been proven a liar

noted


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 16, 2009)

> I allege that there is serious doubt about the scientific reliability of the DATA used by proponents of AGW.



So you're changing your story now that you've been proven a liar

noted


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 16, 2009)

The dogma that you people spew is what makes you so charming.  Rather than try to attack the Democrats on substance, where they are very weak, you hitch your wagon to rediculous stolen e-mails and the Moose Woman....*NICE!*


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1814773 said:
			
		

> > I allege that there is serious doubt about the scientific reliability of the DATA used by proponents of AGW.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am curious why you now find it necessary to outright lie?  Tsk.

I have not lied at all, much less been "proved" to have lied, you liar.

And, obviously, I have not "changed my story," either, you fucktarded schmuck.

Try again when you're up to being  honest if that day ever arrives.


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

!



			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1814773 said:
			
		

> > I allege that there is serious doubt about the scientific reliability of the DATA used by proponents of AGW.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am curious why you now find it necessary to outright lie?  Tsk.

I have not lied at all, much less been "proved" to have lied, you liar.

And, obviously, I have not "changed my story," either, you fucktarded schmuck.

Try again when you're up to being  honest if that day ever arrives.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 16, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> *The dogma that you people spew is what makes you so charming.*  Rather than try to attack the Democrats on substance, where they are very weak, you hitch your wagon to rediculous stolen e-mails and the Moose Woman....*NICE!*


If that's not projection, nothing is.


----------



## The T (Dec 16, 2009)

Dude said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > *The dogma that you people spew is what makes you so charming.* Rather than try to attack the Democrats on_* substance*_, where they are very weak, you hitch your wagon to rediculous stolen e-mails and the Moose Woman....*NICE!*
> ...


 
No shit...And what of Dogma? Does that come from a kennel?


----------

