# The Warmergate Scandal



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

Say it ain't so, Joe! 

So much for the credibility of that mythical "90% of scientists"!



> 8.15 PM UPDATE: The Hadley CRU director admits the emails seem to be genuine:
> 
> 
> The director of Britains leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazines TGIF Edition tonight ..."It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."
> ...



Hadley hacked: warmist conspiracy exposed? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog


----------



## Terry (Nov 20, 2009)

Well for many of us we knew this was all BS but now the others that was taken for a ride has to open their eyes if not then they are without a doubt on a different planet.

The Jig is up!


----------



## eots (Nov 20, 2009)

no question it is another scam  to justify carbon tax ..social control and globalization


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

That link is sooooooo bookmarked!


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 20, 2009)

so hacked e-mails are proof a of a conspiracy? .....right! -  snore....next.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

I see you conveniently glossed over the bolded part, where it says:

*This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider who&#8217;s now blown the whistle.*

Hack.


----------



## Dr.House (Nov 20, 2009)

Terry said:


> Well for many of us we knew this was all BS but now the others that was taken for a ride has to open their eyes if not then they are without a doubt on a different planet.
> 
> The Jig is up!



It's all about the Benjamins...

GlobalClimateCoolerWarmering was hatched to milk as much $$ from the gulible as possible...  It is much easier to "guilt" the poor saps into parting with their dollars because "they caused all this!" than to say that the Earth goes through cycles every now and again...  Evil man must pay to help Mother Earth heal from he wounds he inflicted on her!!

Algore figured out how to scam the idiots into making him stinking filthy rich off of their foolishness...  For all the fun we make of that idiot, he sure knew how to get his followers to throw money at him...lol


----------



## Dr.House (Nov 20, 2009)

Dude said:


> I see you conveniently glossed over the bolded part, where it says:
> 
> *This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider whos now blown the whistle.*
> 
> Hack.



If you want Jayboy Canuckstain to read anything you have to make it look like it came from UnthinkingProgress or some other left-wing hack site..  That's the only world his little brain knows...


----------



## Big Black Dog (Nov 20, 2009)

P.T. Barnum said it best, "There's a sucker born every minute!"  Wonder why so many of the environmental wacko's are so easily taken in?  Wonder when people are going to recognize the scam behind the P.E.T.A. thing?  I guess if you don't want to work for a living and live off somebody else's dime just think up a good scam that people can believe in.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

At least the PETA moonbatettes will flash their boobies!


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 20, 2009)

why isn't this conspiracy nut thread where it's supposed to be? -   in the conspiracy forum.

oh right it's professor Dud.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

Because the source in the OP link has the goods.

This one isn't a theory...It's an ongoing fact.

Therefore, it stays in the envirowacko section.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 20, 2009)

so let me get this straight...... man made climate change has been proven as a hoax because some hacker stole some files and e-mails?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

Still failed to read for comprehension, didn't you?

Would it help if the sentence _*"This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider whos now blown the whistle."*_ was written in crayon?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 20, 2009)

yep I read that part... and that makes man made climate change a hoax?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

Is English your first language?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 20, 2009)

yawn....like I said - cuckoo!....next.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 20, 2009)

Jay ... 



... you're an idiot ...


... that is all.


Dude! Love the find!


----------



## NO!bama08 (Nov 20, 2009)

Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud?

Officials at a key global warming research center
in the United Kingdom have authenticated a series of e-mails and other documents apparently taken from their computer system by a hacker, but they cannot explain what scientists in internal exchanges meant by references to a "trick" that would "hide the decline" of global temperatures nor by instructions to delete contrary data. 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Poor Al Gore, the gravy train is coming to a stop.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 20, 2009)

the other day i lost some e-mails due to a virus...in other news the Earth is flat.


----------



## The T (Nov 20, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> the other day i lost some e-mails due to a virus...in other news the Earth is flat.


 

Translation: "_I've been had and I lost this debate..."_


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 20, 2009)

He offerd no rebuttle so what debate are you refering to cocksmoker?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

As has already been pointed out, _*in size 7 red letters*_, the e-mails weren't hacked. 

The enviro frauds have been ratted out by someone on the inside who has a conscience, and Jay Canschmuck has shown himself for the shameless hack that he is.

_*MERGED*_


----------



## The T (Nov 20, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> He offerd no rebuttle so what debate are you refering to cocksmoker?


 
Translation: "_I've been had and I lost this debate..."_


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 20, 2009)

translation - I have to keep repeating myself in order to make my shit seem true.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 20, 2009)

Dude said:


> As has already been pointed out, _*in size 7 red letters*_, the e-mails weren't hacked.
> 
> The enviro frauds have been ratted out by someone on the inside who has a conscience, and Jay Canschmuck has shown himself for the shameless hack that he is.
> 
> _*MERGED*_


 

sorry Prof. Dud....just going by the link that was provided by you and others...it was written in English - 
*Hacked* e-mails reveal global-warming fraud?


----------



## The T (Nov 20, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> translation - I have to keep repeating myself in order to make my shit seem true.


 
I've been reading the _owning _in several threads in this Forum all day. You should really quit while you _think_ you're ahead.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > As has already been pointed out, _*in size 7 red letters*_, the e-mails weren't hacked.
> ...


Again, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit...See that little squiggly thing at the end of the sentence_*?*_

Were it possible to have negative credibility here, you'd have it (or not have it, such as it is), schmuck.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 20, 2009)

my e-mails were hacked back in the 90's leading me to conclude that the Lunar Moon landing was a hoax.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 20, 2009)

The T said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > translation - I have to keep repeating myself in order to make my shit seem true.
> ...



 I applaud you sir!....you should continue to read my posts! - do I give you a bit of a woody?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

They aren't even comic relief anymore.

Best move on to jokes about back bacon and Newfies.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 20, 2009)

Hadley hacked: warmist conspiracy exposed? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 

so where is the question mark here?


----------



## concept (Nov 20, 2009)

Dude said:


> Still failed to read for comprehension, didn't you?
> 
> Would it help if the sentence _*"This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider whos now blown the whistle."*_ was written in crayon?



LOL I am reading this dopey lib's denial and I am laughing pretty hard.  :LOL:


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 20, 2009)

where is my gay translater stalker?


----------



## concept (Nov 20, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> the other day i lost some e-mails due to a virus...in other news the Earth is flat.



and your head is pointy. 

next...


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 20, 2009)

Translation - when the letters are big and red that makes them the truth?


----------



## concept (Nov 20, 2009)

Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

Hundreds of emails and documents. Who knows what sort of lib spin we are going to hear about this in the coming days and weeks.


We're already witnessing a healthy dose of denial right here beofre our very eyes.

Thanks for the laugh, Jay Canassmunch. That was very damn funny!


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 20, 2009)

Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

I don't even see a question mark in this one.....


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Hadley hacked: warmist conspiracy exposed? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
> 
> so where is the question mark here?


The site from where the story originates still sands by their statement...Let me check again...Yes...They still say the e-mails _*WERE NOT HACKED*_.

In that light, where the "?" in question ended up is of no relevance.


----------



## concept (Nov 20, 2009)

It's on FOX now too.

Oh the hysteria this must be causing!


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 20, 2009)

the Dud is dancing faster than Michael Jackson at an orphanage for boys.


----------



## concept (Nov 20, 2009)

I think I see jay's problem.


----------



## The T (Nov 20, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> the Dud is dancing faster than Michael Jackson at an orphanage for boys.


 But you have YET to prove any of it in _error. Why is that exactly?_ You cannot. Again? You've been had. You've been BOUGHT, and Sold in that Declining Republic you call _Canada._


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2009)

I see. So the nasty people at Hadley have been melting the glaciers and ice caps. But then, we have others that are also keeping track of the record. Are they also in on the grand conspiracy? A conspiracy that would include all of the scientific societies, National Academies of Science, and major Universities in the world.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

Since they're all part of the same incestuous echo chamber --you know, the "peers" who do all this "reviewing"-- the possibility is too strong to overlook.

After all,  everyone around here knows that you'd be pissing yourself, if it were found that Heartland Institute was fudging data, making shit up out of whole cloth and destroying contravening evidence...wouldn't you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2009)

The Heartland Institute does not fudge data, they create whole cloth lies. And dumb suckers like you swallow them.

So what you are claiming is that 95% of all the scientists in the world, from many differant nations and political systems are all in on a grand conspiracy. You and Eots.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

See what I mean? 

PS...That "95% of all scientists" number is also an out-and-out lie, and you know it.

PPS...I've never linked to HI as a source, dumbass.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 20, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. So the nasty people at Hadley have been melting the glaciers and ice caps. But then, we have others that are also keeping track of the record. Are they also in on the grand conspiracy? A conspiracy that would include all of the scientific societies, National Academies of Science, and major Universities in the world.



I see you were not stupid enough to post a source again, maybe there is hope for Old Crock yet.


----------



## concept (Nov 20, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. So the nasty people at Hadley have been melting the glaciers and ice caps. But then, we have others that are also keeping track of the record. Are they also in on the grand conspiracy? A conspiracy that would include all of the scientific societies, National Academies of Science, and major Universities in the world.



So you didn't read anything either?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. So the nasty people at Hadley have been melting the glaciers and ice caps. But then, we have others that are also keeping track of the record. Are they also in on the grand conspiracy? A conspiracy that would include all of the scientific societies, National Academies of Science, and major Universities in the world.


From the linked piece:



> But the files suggest, on a very preliminary glance, some other very dubious practices, too, _*and a lot of collusion - sometimes called &#8220;peer review&#8221;*_._* Or even conspiracy. *_



It's official, Old Rocksinthehead, your "peer review" argument is now a dead letter.

Count on getting the link from the OP as a reply, any and every time you try to invoke that old chestnut.


----------



## The T (Nov 20, 2009)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > I see. So the nasty people at Hadley have been melting the glaciers and ice caps. But then, we have others that are also keeping track of the record. Are they also in on the grand conspiracy? A conspiracy that would include all of the scientific societies, National Academies of Science, and major Universities in the world.
> ...


 
Pretty much sews this up in a neat package.

What remains to be seen is the upcoming Summit and If we will really be _sold out_ on the International Scene, and Domestically, with Cap and TAX...

How many will subscribe to the Faux AGW with this bombshell looming?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

More stuff:



> General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.
> 
> In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I'll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.
> 
> ...



- Bishop Hill blog - Climate cuttings*33

And those are just a few of the highlights.

Nothing like destroying evidence, distorting statistics, collusion, destroying the careers of those who question you and evading FOIA requests to lend credibility to your "settled  science", eh what?

This one isn't going away quietly, gang!


----------



## Gatekeeper (Nov 21, 2009)

I wonder how many AL Gore types are in cahoots with this Global Warming Scam?

The Great Climate Change Scandal of 2009 | BNET Energy Blog | BNET

Doctoring the graphs to show stats that advance their agendas to make Billions and rip the rest of us off and subjugate the populations of the countries to unbelievable laws and controls that will boggle the mind.

 There is a lot to read in further links on this subject, but I am almost certain we'll all find a lot of corruption and greed with-in this GB nonsense. Same old story, Who Ya Gonna Believe?


----------



## Polk (Nov 21, 2009)

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: I Read Through 160,000,000 Bytes of Hacked Files And All I Got Was This Lousy E-Mail


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 21, 2009)

> *Climate Change Scandal? Tell me it ain't so....*



It ain't.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Nov 21, 2009)

As long as there is a dime to be made off of somebody elses stupidity there will be guys like Al Gore around.  It's the politically correct "issue" of the day so that tells you even more how big of a scam it all is.  Also what kind of dummies buy into this crap.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

Thanks for the added ammo for my already-in-progress thread on this topic.

_*MERGED*_


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

Excellent....All the incriminating e-mails can be found HERE


----------



## Terry (Nov 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> Excellent....All the incriminating e-mails can be found HERE


Thank you Dude, I was looking for this.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

Recently obtained (hacked!) evidence from Hadley CRU shows scathing evidence of the manipulations by the pro-global warming "scientists" intent on falsely portraying the earth's temperature data  - clear proof that politics and funding, not science, has been behind much of the global warming industry...

___

November 20, 2009 
Scientific scandal appears to rock climate change promoters
Clarice Feldman

There's big news for climate change students. A hacker has gotten into the computers at Hadley CRU, Britain's largest climate research institute and a proponent of global warming, and seems to have uncovered evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the "evidence" on global warming; the unlawful destruction of records to cover up this fraud ,conspiracy,and deceit in the entire operation. 

                    [update - see also The Evidence of Climate Fraud]

While hacking into the institute's records is inappropriate if not illegal, *the activities disclosed  appear  illegal and damaging to science and the economies of the world*. 

At first many of us were inclined to dismiss the posted emails from the Institute as fraud, but the head of the institute admits the records were hacked and the emails seem genuine.

Here is a sample of the purportedly hacked material (1079 emails and 72 documents) available online: 

From: Phil Jones 
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX 
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement 
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX 

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, 

Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. 

*I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.* Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. 

Thanks for the comments, Ray. 

Cheers 
Phil 

Prof. Phil Jones 
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX 
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX 
University of East Anglia 
Norwich 
*******************************************


Rest of article here:


American Thinker Blog: Scientific scandal appears to rock climate change promoters


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

You're a day late and a dollar short.

But thanks for the added source, anyways.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> You're a day late and a dollar short.
> 
> But thanks for the added source, anyways.



Just caught that - whoops!


As to the subject itself - WOW.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> More stuff:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Exactly.

Where are those in here in the past who stated there was no "agenda" , no pressure to make the science conform to said agenda?

That list of academic destruction that Dude posted is what happens in academics folks - the pressure to conform is enormous.  I have lived and breathed that world for a decade - and unless you have done so as well, you simply don't understand the workings of agenda-funding driven academics...


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNu3iFBPglM[/ame]


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Where are those in here in the past who stated there was no "agenda" , no pressure to make the science conform to said agenda?
> 
> That list of academic destruction that Dude posted is what happens in academics folks - the pressure to conform is enormous.  I have lived and breathed that world for a decade - and unless you have done so as well, you simply don't understand the workings of agenda-funding driven academics...


I have not yet begun to dig.

Haven't yet sifted through all the links from the page on the OP and still more damaging info comes in over the transom.

These crooks have to be stopped and their worldwide scam exposed for what it is.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly.
> ...




Agreed - if this material is found to be legit - and to this point it appears it is in fact just that, this is HUGE.  This blows the lid off of the entire mess.  It shows it to be an international agenda, where science was pressured to conform, thus making it policy-drive "science" and not science-driven policy as it should be.

The architects of this scam purposely misled, the money poured in, and figures such as Al Gore and others became wealthy over the repeated distribution of the lie of man-made global warming...


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

And kudos to the insider who leaked this information.  This could not have come from an outside source but somebody within who had had enough of the lies and scientific deceptions.  I have no doubt they could be killed for doing such as billions - if not trillions, of dollars are at stake via the global warming hoax ponzi-scheme...


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

New York Times picking up on it now...


_The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments &#8212; in some cases derisive &#8212; about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical &#8220;trick&#8221; in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as &#8220;idiots.&#8221; _


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=2


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

Andrew Bolt of Australia's Herald Sun has more:

So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I&#8217;ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - *emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.* If it is as it now seems, never again will &#8220;peer review&#8221; be used to shout down sceptics.  


Warmist conspiracy exposed? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

That's the link in the OP.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> That's the link in the OP.




So much information - this story is breakin like a tsunami!!!


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> New York Times picking up on it now...
> 
> 
> _The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments  in some cases derisive  about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.
> ...



From the piece:



> The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.



Good thing the NYT doesn't give editorial spin on any of this and just reports the facts!


----------



## Polk (Nov 21, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> yep I read that part... and that makes man made climate change a hoax?



Sure, because if some blogger claims it, it must be true.


----------



## Polk (Nov 21, 2009)

PS, guys, this email doesn't tell you what you think it tells you...


----------



## Polk (Nov 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > New York Times picking up on it now...
> ...



What editorial spin is there in that? The vast majority of researchers in the field do accept the basic idea that humans are driving the increases in temperature.


----------



## Chris (Nov 21, 2009)

Polk said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...



Don't interupt their delusion, please, it's too entertaining.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

Speaking of delusion, your pet religion has just had a massive hole blown in it.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

Polk said:


> PS, guys, this email doesn't tell you what you think it tells you...


----------



## Polk (Nov 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > PS, guys, this email doesn't tell you what you think it tells you...



What the email is saying to sex up the graph. You could consider that unethical, but that's not fabricating data. Furthermore, accepting your argument as valid (that they were where playing with the data), what decline was there to cover up? The email was written in 1999, which was the year after the hottest year on record.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

A well written take from James Delingpole regarding what he has now dubbed "ClimateGate"...

___


But in the case of &#8220;Climate Change&#8221;, the MSM has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby. Most of their contacts (and information sources) work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust. How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?

As Upton Sinclair once said:

&#8220;It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.&#8221;



Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science &#8211; Telegraph Blogs


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

Polk said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


There are scores of e-mails here that clearly show a pattern of abuse, destruction of contrary evidence, refusal to allow outside assessment of the "research" and outright collusion and conspiracy...Picking one out of the entirety and trying to use it as some sort of linchpin that debunks the rest is just plain daffy.

Though, not unexpected.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

From the Canada Free Press...


Hacked files of the Climatic Research Unit, Global Warming a deliberate fraud
*The Death Blow to Climate Science*


...Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote, &#8220; With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said. &#8220;We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.&#8221;  The person in question was Jonathan Overpeck and his even more revealing emails are part of those exposed by the hacker. It is now very clear that Deming&#8217;s charge was precise. *They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes.*

Full article here:

The Death Blow to Climate Science


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

There's hope for Canada yet.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

> Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists
> 
> Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including,
> 
> ...


Remember those names....Bookmark this post.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

A collection of responses from the Washington Post article - it appears folks on both sides of this issue are a wee bit upset...

___

whifley wrote:
Senator Imhofe states it most succinctly about the global warming debate:

"We won, you lost, now get a life!"

*AGW alarmism has always been bad assumptions forming bad models, backed by bad (now we know, manipulated) data.*

__

sophic wrote:
A famous quote from Liars:

"They took all my writings out of context"

Let see, how can you take the words "here's how we can the hide the data" out of context...

Only Obama's ignorant tingly legged voters could beleve that...

___

I do just love that IPCC report. It picks 1750 as the start date. And then, OMG! The Earth is warming, and we don't know why!!! 

Hello chicken little! The Maunder Minimum and The Little Ice Age!!! Sunspots disappeared, and the Earth Cooled! Sunspots reappeared, and the Earth Warmed!!! Moreover, we have 20th and 21st century data showing solar luminosity is hiring during sunspot peaks then during sunspot dearths.

In case you haven't heard of the subject, there's this little science known as astronomy. What the astronomers have found is that there is this class of stars called variable stars. Their output changes. Why, on God's Green Earth (assuming you believe in God), would you think that our sun would for some magical reason be quiescient, when many stars similar to ours aren't. Perhaps it is that variable solar output destroys your capitalism destroying scam.

What it really comes down to is all of you left wing pinko liberal socialist commies loathe people making money, loathe capitalism, and loathe our country. So, therefore, you invented this scam to try and crush our way of life. Not on my watch, LOSER!!!

___

bob59 wrote:
Human caused global warming has been proven to be scientifically false.

However, it's politically correct. Al Gore stands to make nearly a billion dollars on his investment in "carbon credits".

Gore's movie was so scientifically inaccurate it was banned from schools in Europe.

Why did the last Ice Age melt away over 5,000 years ago? Was it caused by Bush, Big Business, or some other retarded talking point?

Global cooling of the 1970's turned into global warming in the 1990's. Wake up. It's an environmental scam costing trillions of dollars.
___

Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center - washingtonpost.com


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> > Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists
> >
> > Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including,
> >
> ...




And I'll add *Steig* to that list simply because I have been hounding that case for the last year...


Victory Is Mine Steig!!!!!!


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

And responses from the Wall Street Journal report...

___

Frank Mcdougal wrote: 
The comments released about massaging data are just the tip of the iceberg. I have read about 100 of the 1000 e-mails and everyone of them is damaging in some way. It is quite clear that massaging the data is an acceptable sceintific procedure in climate science. We are not talking about one or two e-mails taken out of context. They all show corruption and collusion!

I would suggest that anyone curious wanting to get the whole story try and find some place that still has the files for download. This is the greatest exposure of a coverup I have seen in my lifetime since watergate!

It will undoubtedly take weeks and motnhs for this information to trickle out onto the MSM.
____

1:45 pm November 21, 2009 
Dale Robertson wrote: 
As India&#8217;s and China&#8217;s rapid industrialization has pumped massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the actual measured earths average temperature has fallen into a down trend. So much for the radical concept of man made carbon dioxide disaster. The National Geographic Survey proclaims that this area where I live, was under 2500 feet of glacier, 10000 years ago, now it is quite nice. Thank God for the Global Warming we can get.
____

11:20 am November 20, 2009 
myself wrote: 
These &#8220;scientists&#8221; even admits in those documents and emails that they have tinkered with the data. They also admit that there has been no sign of global warming in the last decade.
____


11:35 am November 20, 2009 
David wrote: 
This is awesome. The guys who argue that the earth is warming and that it is being cause by human beings all have one thing in common. They only want you to read their summaries and never question or analyze any of their data, assumptions, or algorithms. Why? Because if people did see that stuff, they would come to one conclusion. AGW is a big lie!
____

11:44 am November 20, 2009 
Paul wrote: 
Actually most of the emails fall into one of four categories:
*(1) Efforts to rig the peer review process
(2) Efforts to to circumvent FOI laws
(3) Efforts to doctor data
(4) Efforts to mislead journalists*


Hacked: Sensitive Documents Lifted from Hadley Climate Center - Environmental Capital - WSJ


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

dude removing my post only makes you the same as the global warming dupes...just think of the magnitude of this conspiracy and the legions of so-called credible scientist that were so willing to say what their government handlers...then think of how easy fudging the 9/11 commission report or swine flu statistics would be...I mean really...think about it...it s not a derailment it is relevant to this subject which is in fact a grand conspiracy is it not ?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

And whining about deletion of an irrelevant post makes you a whiner.

Man up, stay on topic and revel in the allies you have when you can get them.


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

OK fine but what about the polar bear on the chunk of ice ...did you see those big brown sad eyes. ?.. with photo ops like this is science really nessessary ?/


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

Yeah...Thanks, Al. 

Seriously, though...There are so many links upon links on the linked pages in this thread, that a voracious detective like you should be able to track down some stff the rest of us have missed.


Have at it, man.


----------



## concept (Nov 21, 2009)

lol... 
This is quite amazing.  

It's going to take a while before all of this comes out.

The AGW weenies must be freaking out right about now trying to come up with some good spin to force feel the LSM.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

The AP is on board now.

And from this report we see the connecting dots - via the Goddard Institute?NASA, the US Center for Atmospheric Research, Mann, and the UK Climate Research Clinic - basically proof of the widespread collusion between government funded agencies and academic scientists to further promote a belief of global warming via manipulated data and worst-case-scenario model based projection.  

This collusion was clearly rampant, and utterly repulsive to the concept of academic freedom and sound science.  Naysayers were aggressively attacked, peer review became a sham, and a disengenous concept willingly promoted...

____


...More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.

Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim the information shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers have attempted to manipulate data.

...In one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline" in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.

...Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.

One of the colleague referred to by Jones &#8212; Michael Mann, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University &#8212; did not immediately respond to requests for comment via telephone and e-mail.


Entire article here:

Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate - Yahoo! News


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

concept said:


> lol...
> This is quite amazing.
> 
> It's going to take a while before all of this comes out.
> ...



You better believe it  - and rest assured calls have already been made to higher ups in certain media outlets to hold off reporting fully to allow the climate mongers time to  construct a strong defense of denial.

Don't forget, NBC/MSNBC/CNBC are owned by GE - an entity that has invested big time in the selling of the GO-GREEN anti-global warming -climate change economy...


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

The secondary news reports are exploding on this issue - look for the mainstreamers to pick it up in earnest tomorrow and Monday...

__

*ClimateGate? *
Recent news reports seems to confirm that suspected hackers have indeed hacked into the University of East Anglia Climate Research Center and published what some are claiming is a mushroom cloud of e-mail evidence that scientists are falsley manipulating data that overstate Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.  While some are decrying collusion, East Anglia has jumped on the defensive and released a statement claiming that some e-mails are being taken out of context. Other advocates say it's nothing more than scientific e-mail conversations with the overwhelming body of evidence pointing to man-made global warming.

In addition, Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years"  Even global warming supporter, Mojib Latif, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is reported to have stated that ""that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years."

With billions at stake, the battle rages on and each side jockeys for position, we wonder will this be one of the most significant hacks in history or just a whole lotta hot air?

In the meantime, we'll just keep hoping that one day we'll see an accurate 10-day forecast.



Hackers prove Global Warming Hoax? - Roseville California News including Rocklin and Placer County


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

concept said:


> lol...
> This is quite amazing.
> 
> It's going to take a while before all of this comes out.
> ...


Even though the original source makes it clear that the informant is an insider, all the outlets I've come across are still sticking by the story that it was an outside hacker.

I wonder if Jon Lebowitz will correct this factual error on his comedy "news" program.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> concept said:
> 
> 
> > lol...
> ...




Predictable slant - but fortunately the onslaught of information appears overwhelming at this point.

You have been on the front lines of this debate ever since I started participating in this forum Dude - keep at it.  Your instincts regarding the fraud that has been global warming are proving correct and I am grateful for you efforts...


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)




----------



## code1211 (Nov 21, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > concept said:
> ...





Weeellllll....

This IS an interesting twist, isn't it?

All of those blink comparators from Antony Watts now seem to be coming into greater clarity.  Why has every recorded temperature before 1978 been lowered while every temperture after 1978 has been raised?  Why has none of the Big Time Temperature analysis organizations commented on this and just let it stand while Dr. Hansen "Et Al" just keep on shoveling the brown snow?

Why have the "scientists" continuously refused to recognize what the data says and only parrot the "wait a little and the warming will restart" mantra.

Well, anyway, if we are going to hit that MIT predicted increase of 5 to 7 degrees by the end of this century, we should be about .5 degrees warmer right now than we were 10 years ago.

How're we doin'?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

From Yayhoo:



> Two other American scientists named in leaked e-mails 
> 
> *Gavin Schmidt* of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and
> *
> Kevin Trenberth*, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado  did not immediately return requests for comment.



Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate - Yahoo! News

Note how the AP also does its dead-level best to spin this as best they can for the "scientific" frauds.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

Even the hardcore global warmers are having a difficult time coming to terms with these recent events - not so easy to dismiss the words of the very figures within the scientific community responsible for propping up this hoax for the last 20 years...


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 21, 2009)

A couple months ago, the infamous Mann hockey stick, which is perhaps the foundational graphic upon which so much of the global warming myth was built upon, was proven to be a clear example of scientific manipulation of data indication.

From the Anthony Watts website...

__


*Update: A zoomed look at the broken hockey stick*
28

09

2009
 Steve McIntyre published an update tonight showing the last 200 years of the Yamal tree ring data versus the archived CRU tree ring data used to make the famous hockey stick. For those just joining us, see the story here.

First here&#8217;s the before an after at millennial scale.

Steve McIntyre writes:

The next graphic compares the RCS chronologies from the two slightly different data sets: red &#8211; the RCS chronology calculated from the CRU archive (with the 12 picked cores); black &#8211; the RCS chronology calculated using the Schweingruber Yamal sample of living trees instead of the 12 picked trees used in the CRU archive. *The difference is breathtaking.*
__

And here is the difference between Mann's pre-determined outcome science that created the false hockey stick, (red line) and the actual scientific outcome that all but eliminates the spike in temperatures shown by the dubious Mann graph (black line) 

It is indeed quite remarkable, and more than sickening - one must assume that such manipulations of data runs rampant within the global warming science community - and the most recent email revelations appear to in fact, confirm that growing belief...


----------



## Thinman (Nov 21, 2009)

I went through some nasty winters, when I was a kid and frankly, I was looking forward to gobal warming.  This is truly depressing.  We will be over run by Canadians trying to escape the mountains of ice from this coming ice age.

On a serious note, if this is true, the repercussions will be monumental.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 21, 2009)

Thinman said:


> I went through some nasty winters, when I was a kid and frankly, I was looking forward to gobal warming.  This is truly depressing.  We will be over run by Canadians trying to escape the mountains of ice from this coming ice age.
> 
> On a serious note, if this is true, the repercussions will be monumental.



When I was young we use to joke about the ocean front property in AZ ... you know what ... I'm glad we didn't take that too seriously or I'd be broke right now.


----------



## FactFinder (Nov 22, 2009)

This is even better than 450 peer reviewed skeptic articles. Now all they need is hacked emails from Hansen to complete the circle. 

When Goldman Sachs is using this as the basis of their next bubble you know it is a well financed hoax. 

My vote is to round them all up and ship them off to North Waziristan.


----------



## Annie (Nov 22, 2009)

Getting big play today in WaPo, emphasis on the fact that 'peer-review-articles' seem neigh impossible for those that disagree to get:

washingtonpost.com



> In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes
> Stolen e-mails reveal venomous feelings toward skeptics
> By Juliet Eilperin
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> ...


----------



## concept (Nov 22, 2009)

manifold said:


> Why the fuck does is this thread a sticky?



I don't know.

Why the fuck does is you are a douche?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 22, 2009)

manifold said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


How is reporting news of a glaringly evident scandal, about shamelessly biased people -who are _*literally*_ trying to run how the world's industrialized nations fuel their prosperity-biased, in and of itself?

IM not-at-all HO this scandal is every bit as big as Watergate.

Besides all that, neither you nor Ravi ever comment on this general topic to begin with, so what's it to you anyways?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 22, 2009)

Sure it's a flame thread. 

It's also not as important as you seem to think. 

It _could_ show that there are some unscrupulous scientists and if that is so they should be booted out of their jobs at the very least.

It _could_  show that a hacker with an agenda is the one being unscrupulous, and criminal, btw, and if so he should be arrested.

It's also a conspiracy theory...the belief that 90% of scientists are colluding in some worldwide conspiracy.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 22, 2009)

Ravi said:


> It _could_  show that a hacker with an agenda is the one being unscrupulous, and criminal, btw, and if so he should be arrested.


I see you've also failed to read the piece in the OP, where it's clearly stated, and has been reiterated in big red letters, that that it's an insider who rolled over and not an outside hacker who leaked these e-mails.

But I've decided to be a little sensitive and overlook these little failures on your part, and not speculate on why that is.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 22, 2009)

_*Unstickied and superfluous comments deleted.

~Dude*_


----------



## concept (Nov 22, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Sure it's a flame thread.
> 
> It's also not as important as you seem to think.
> 
> ...





Do you remember the hockeystick graph? You realize that the numbers that were used to plot that graph were altered? 

You realize that information was deleted so that it would not be found when the FOIA was invoked? That's a crime.

You realize that this is looking more and more like an inside job from a disgruntled emplyee or someone that was fed up?


Sorry Rav, just try to imagine the repercussions from this. How much of a gigantic scandal would this be if the LSM would actually do their fucking job instead of covering everything up for their lib buddies...

But guess what? The internet is becoming even more powerful and important. for too long, the LSm has been hiding the truth and twisting facts to suit their moonbat agenda, and now more and more people are using the intrernet and seeing for themselves what is happening. Pretty soon the LSm will be found in history books only.

Now if we can only get the stupid lib academics to stop trying to rewrite said history books, we'll be fine.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 22, 2009)

AOL news picked it up and has nearly 1800 comments on the story already.

Like other media outlets, AOL is parroting the "hacker" angle vs what appears more likely to have been an insider who released the file data...


Hacked E-Mails Heat Up Global Warming Dispute


----------



## Annie (Nov 22, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> A couple months ago, the infamous Mann hockey stick, which is perhaps the foundational graphic upon which so much of the global warming myth was built upon, was proven to be a clear example of scientific manipulation of data indication.
> 
> From the Anthony Watts website...
> 
> ...




Regarding 'Mann' and hockey stick. There's a link to download all the emails at site:

Download The Entire Leaked Climate Docs



> Download The Entire Leaked Climate Emails
> Joe Weisenthal|Nov. 21, 2009, 3:51 PM | 1,467 |14
> Print
> Tags: Global Warming, Scandals
> ...


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 22, 2009)

A blog from October indicating a scandal regarding the IPCC collusion to skew the actual temperature data - which in turn skewed the entire man-made global warming debate...

____

*The Hockey Stick Global Warming Scandal: Did The IPCC Encourage Scientific Fraud? Did The IPCC Ignore More Comprehensive Research?*

Read here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for background information on the latest developments of this climate science scandal. Based on available information, are we witnessing a massive scientific fraud endeavor that has UN backing? If you do not have...... 

time to review these links, here's a brief summary of this science scandal/fraud:

*There appears to be a tight-knit group of paleo-climate scientists who have chosen to pursue research that would make the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age disappear and accentuate warming in the 20th century. *Of all the peer-reviewed studies that have been done to reconstruct historical temperatures, this group of scientists decided that a Northern Siberian (Yamal peninsula) tree ring study best fit their needs. Out of the 2,000 trees in the Yamal study, *the paleo-climate scientists picked some dozen individual tree ring records that best produced the desired result - no Medieval Warming, no Little Ice Age, and a lot of warming in the 20th century*.* These dozen trees produced the visual 'hockey stick' result that global warming alarmists rely on for proof*. Literally, the whole UN alarmist basis for climate catastrophe and "unprecedented" warming seems to be a result of these dozen trees that are used in every study that this same group of scientists publish. 

*The fact that these same one-dozen trees show up in study-after-study is simply amazing. Even more amazing is that the UN's IPCC ignored multiple paleo-climate studies, *from approximately the same latitudinal area, that totally refute the 'dozen-tree' conclusions. Below are some of those peer-reviewed studies:

Southeastern Shelf of the Laptev Sea, Arctic Ocean - Studied the distributions of different species of siliceous microflora (diatoms), calcareous microfauna (foraminifers) and spore-pollen assemblages found in sediment cores retrieved from 21 sites on the inner shelf of the southern and eastern Laptev Sea... In addition, "judging from the increased diversity and abundance of the benthic foraminifers, the appearance of moderately thermophilic diatom species, and the presence of forest tundra (instead of tundra) pollen," they write that "the Medieval warming exceeded the recent 'industrial' one." 
Northern Russian Treeline, Russia - This work revealed, in their words, that "temperature increases over the past century are already producing demonstrable changes in the population density of trees, but these changes have not yet generated an extension of conifer species' limits to or beyond the former positions occupied during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP: ca AD 800-1300)..." 
Bol'shoi Avam River, Putoran Plateau, North Central Siberia, Russia - The authors developed a history of trunk radial growth increment of larch trees in the middle reaches of the Bol'shoi Avam River on the northern edge of the Putoran Plateau, central Taimyr for the period AD 886-2003, which they found to be correlated with summer air temperature. This work revealed a period of time from the start of the record to approximately AD 1200, when inferred temperatures were generally much greater than those of the final decades of the 20th century. 
Polar Ural Mountains, Russia - This work revealed that "a large number of well-preserved tree remains can be found up to 60-80 meters above the current tree line, some dating to as early as a maximum of 1300 years ago," and that "the earliest distinct maximum in stand density occurred in the 11th to 13th centuries, coincident with Medieval climatic warming." Since Marzepa cites many studies that conclude that "increases in tree-line elevation, and associated increases in tree abundance within the transient tree-line ecotone, are associated with extended warm periods," and that "the vertical gradient of summer air temperature in the Polar Urals is 0.7°C/100 m," we conclude that the Medieval Warm Period lasted from approximately AD 700 to 1300 and that significant portions of it were as much as 0.56°C warmer than the Current Warm Period. 
Lake Lehmilampi, Eastern Finland - The authors extracted two sediment cores from Lake Lehmilampi in eastern Finland, after which they identified and counted the approximately 2000 annual varves contained in each core and measured their individual thicknesses and mineral and organic matter contents......Consequently, because they note that (1) "the thinnest varves of the last 2000 years were deposited during [the] solar activity maxima in the Middle Ages," specifically AD 1060-1280, that (2) the low deposition rate of mineral matter in that period "implies mild winters with a short ice cover period during that time with minor snow accumulation interrupted by thawing periods," and that (3) the concurrent "low accumulation of organic matter suggests a long open water season and a high decomposition rate of organic matter," it follows that the solar-induced Medieval Warm Period of AD 1060-1280 in that part of the world was likely the warmest period of the past two millennia. 
Finland's Southern Boreal Forest, Near Savonlinna, Finland - The authors applied x-ray microdensitometry to subfossil samples of Scots pine trees collected from the bottom sediments of six small lakes within the southern boreal forest zone near the city of Savonlinna in south-eastern Finland, which covered the period AD 673-1788. This work revealed the occurrence of both the Medieval Warm Period (AD 975-1150) and the Little Ice Age (AD 1450-1625), between which periods there was a dramatic decline in tree-ring maximum density, indicative of a significant drop in summer growing-season temperature. 
Voring Plateau, Eastern Norwegian Sea - August surface temperatures of the eastern Norwegian Sea's Voring Plateau were derived from planktic stable isotopes and foraminiferal assemblage concentrations.  The Medieval Warm Period occurred between AD 1200 and 1500 and was as much as 3.3°C warmer than the Current Warm Period. 
From what is known, it appears that the IPCC condoned the type of research that the dozen-tree Yamal research represents. The IPCC has relied on this very exclusive dozen-tree history, while totally ignoring more encompassing research (see above), which reveals an incredible lack of scientific due diligence. *As a result, the UN's IPCC has obviously done monumental damage to global science credibility.* Simply amazing. 


C3: The Hockey Stick Global Warming Scandal: Did The IPCC Encourage Scientific Fraud? Did The IPCC Ignore More Comprehensive Research?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 22, 2009)

Dude said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > It _could_  show that a hacker with an agenda is the one being unscrupulous, and criminal, btw, and if so he should be arrested.
> ...


An insider is still a hacker when he or she takes from his employer, D'uh.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 22, 2009)

An interesting question posed at Free Republic - should Al Gore and all conspirators be brought up on charges?  Hmmmmm....
___

With the global warming scandal- will Al Gore now be brought up on charges?


Posted on Friday, November 20, 2009 258 PM by sadsacke

*With all of the breaking news regarding the global warming/climate change scam- is there a possibility Al Gore could be imprisoned the way Bernie Madoff was? I don't see much difference in what the two men have done.*



With the global warming scandal- will Al Gore now be brought up on charges?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 22, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


A hacker is, by definition, someone who doesn't have authorized internal access.

Computer Hacking Law & Legal Definition

An insider who downloaded and leaked the e-mails and files _*does not*_ fall under that definition.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 22, 2009)

Dude said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...




Ravi is such a complete dolt...


----------



## Ravi (Nov 22, 2009)

Dude said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


Uh huh...who has access to everyone's emails? Probably the boss and the IT department...and the IT department doesn't have the legal right to leak internal documents. So unless it is the boss, it is a hacker.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 22, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> An interesting question posed at Free Republic - should Al Gore and all conspirators be brought up on charges?  Hmmmmm....
> ___
> 
> With the global warming scandal- will Al Gore now be brought up on charges?
> ...


Jesus, I should have known you and Dude were idiot freepers.


----------



## concept (Nov 22, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Uhh no.


----------



## Annie (Nov 22, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> A blog from October indicating a scandal regarding the IPCC collusion to skew the actual temperature data - which in turn skewed the entire man-made global warming debate...
> 
> ____
> 
> ...



Unreal. Even I a serious non-scientific sort of person was able to understand those studies. 

Dude is right, this is a major scandal for the scientific community in general, climate folks in particular.


----------



## concept (Nov 22, 2009)

Notice the angle Ravi is going for here?

This must be the talking point/marching orders that libs have so far.


Calling whomever did this a hacker.
Yes hacking is bad. We all know this.

However it is looking like it was a disgruntled employee or sometihng like that.


We'll continue to see this angle by moonbats like Ravi because it is the best way they can think of the deflect from what was actually found.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 22, 2009)

Annie said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > A blog from October indicating a scandal regarding the IPCC collusion to skew the actual temperature data - which in turn skewed the entire man-made global warming debate...
> ...




Indeed - there has been growing opposition within the academic community against the tyranny of the climate change proponents.  The Mann hockey stick has been disputed for years - Mann originally refused to release his actual data - then revised his "hockey stick", at which time more and more were able to discover the deception of his calculations.

The frustration for so many was the mainstream media's unwillingness to relay these conflicts going on within the ongoing climate change debate - figures like Al Gore were allowed to state, "The debate is over..." when in fact it was just the opposite.  The debate was getting increasingly volatile.

Add to this the hundreds of millions that Wall Street had then invested in the Go Green movement, which was tied directly to the climate change issue, and getting the message of dissention on the actual science was even more difficult to transmit.  When GE owns an entire network, with NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC all parroting the climate change mantra in the hopes of an investment of hundreds of millions will result in returns of hundreds of billions, the disparity between truth and manipulation is clear.  George Soros, Goldman Sachs, Google, and on and on - these individuals and business entities were, and will remain, working hard to ensure they do not lose their investment.  Cap and Trade is the big payoff, with secondary earnings coming from Go Green industries, public relations, etc.  The entire industry would collect TRILLIONS in future earnings - to say nothing of the considerable increase in the size of centralized government - which of course appeals to politicians who believe government always knows better than the individual.

These emails may prove not to be just a smoking gun, but an entire barrage of firearms blowing holes in this plan for increased centralized government power and big time profits...


----------



## Oddball (Nov 22, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Uh huh...who has access to everyone's emails? Probably the boss and the IT department...and the IT department doesn't have the legal right to leak internal documents. So unless it is the boss, it is a hacker.


Just admit you didn't read the criteria described in the link and that you have no idea what you're talking about.

It's the honest thing to do and you'll look like less of a fool.





Ravi said:


> Jesus, I should have known you and Dude were idiot freepers.


Feel free to go through my posts and point out when I _*ever*_ sourced, or even visited, Free Republic.

Take your time...We can wait.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 22, 2009)

Dude said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Uh huh...who has access to everyone's emails? Probably the boss and the IT department...and the IT department doesn't have the legal right to leak internal documents. So unless it is the boss, it is a hacker.
> ...




Don't bother with the likes of Ravi Dude - you are far too mighty to even shrug at the likes of He/She...


----------



## Ravi (Nov 22, 2009)

Dude said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Uh huh...who has access to everyone's emails? Probably the boss and the IT department...and the IT department doesn't have the legal right to leak internal documents. So unless it is the boss, it is a hacker.
> ...


You're the one that looks like the fool. Again, if the person that took the information didn't have the authority to do so they are guilty of hacking, at least under US law.


> Hacking is the deliberate and unauthorized access, use, disclosure, and/or taking of electronic data on a computer and is covered under federal and varied state criminal statutes. The computer crime of hacking is committed when a person willfully, knowingly, and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has such authorization, attempts or achieves access, communication, examination, or modification of data, computer programs, or supporting documentation residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network.
> 
> Hacking may also occur when a person willfully, knowingly, and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has such authorization, destroys data, computer programs, or supporting documentation residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network. Besides the destruction of such data, hacking may also be defined to include the disclosure, use or taking of the data. commits an offense against intellectual property.


Computer Crime Law & Legal Definition


----------



## Ravi (Nov 22, 2009)

concept said:


> Notice the angle Ravi is going for here?
> 
> This must be the talking point/marching orders that libs have so far.
> 
> ...


It doesn't matter to me either way. I'm not convinced on global warming in either direction. I'm just laughing at Dud.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 22, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3foXJfWlgoM&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Annie (Nov 22, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Ravi, you know I'm not going to agree with your pov. With that said, assuming you're correct and it was an inside 'hack', does the substance make you just a wee bit uncomfortable?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 22, 2009)

Annie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


Nope...I don't care either way. IMO, pollution hurts the planet and us...I've no problem with limiting it. You don't have to be a global warming believer to know that pollution is bad, and you have to be mildly retarded to believe that we are incapable of harming the environment.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 22, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Nope...I don't care either way. IMO, pollution hurts the planet and us...I've no problem with limiting it. You don't have to be a global warming believer to know that pollution is bad, and you have to be mildly retarded to believe that we are incapable of harming the environment.


So, faking evidence, destroying contrary evidence, collusion and destroying the careers of those who differ with your POV is OK, as long as it meets with your particular political agenda.

Just wow.


----------



## Annie (Nov 22, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



No shit! How many do you think on the contrarian pov think pollution is 'bad?' I know I do. I recycle, lots. I also bring my green bags to grocery. I buy environmental friendly products, though I suspect they may not be, but it's 'the thought that counts.' Right?


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



you are missing the fact they will take your _pollution is bad _sentiments and use them to control you ..tax you and profit from you..and other than that it will be business as usual


----------



## Ravi (Nov 22, 2009)

Dude said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Nope...I don't care either way. IMO, pollution hurts the planet and us...I've no problem with limiting it. You don't have to be a global warming believer to know that pollution is bad, and you have to be mildly retarded to believe that we are incapable of harming the environment.
> ...


Where did I say any of that? I made my position clear further up the thread of the two things these emails _could_ mean.

No offense, but you're peeing your pants with glee over a few *perhaps* unethical scientists and making it sound like their is a world wide conspiracy on climate science. 

And you want us to believe you aren't partisan.


----------



## Anguille (Nov 22, 2009)

Ravi said:


> And you want us to believe you aren't partisan.


The p word. Thye hate that.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 22, 2009)

Ravi said:


> No offense, but you're peeing your pants with glee over a few *perhaps* unethical scientists and making it sound like their is a world wide conspiracy on climate science.
> 
> And you want us to believe you aren't partisan.


First of all, I'm not "peeing my pants with glee".

Secondly, these few "scientists" are in the inner circle of "peers" who review and validate each others' work and numbers. If you have a number of people, however relatively few, supplying faulty information to everyone else, who subsequently base their further efforts on those bogus numbers, you have a _*BIG*_ problem brewing.

This is what happens when you get your "science" from echo chambers.


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



it is not as difficult as you think for a realitvly small group of indivduals with control of the media and billions and billions of dollars to create a so -called world wide conspiracy... as jensen said so well.....there is no world wide anymore ..._There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels.

It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!

Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?

You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today._

American Rhetoric: Movie Speech 

"Network" (1976)


----------



## Oddball (Nov 22, 2009)

More stuff (Thanks Ame®icano):

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of &#8216;Anthropogenic Global Warming&#8217;? &#8211; Telegraph Blogs

A zillion of mostly supportive comments after that one. Most notable is the author's right at the top:



> Feels like youre perched on top of a rocket James  thrilling stuff!
> 
> Yep. I was feeling that way in Brussels at Roger Helmers sceptics conference on Wednesday. Its a journalists dream: having the weight of evidence on your side and the public mood behind you, yet simultaneously being in the position where youre thought of as some bold, maverick contrarian flying in the face of the Establishment.



And, because we know the wackaloons love them so much, as story from Fox:

Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails - Biology | Astronomy | Chemistry | Physics - FOXNews.com


----------



## concept (Nov 22, 2009)

*yawn*

Crickets...


----------



## keee keee (Nov 22, 2009)

warmest winter in history no summer to speak of, didn't even run my air this year except to see if it worked. What a total crock of shit!!!! these same morons now want me to go to them for my healthcare now that is scary!!! nothing the government runs is profitable or secure, just full of theift, corruption and incompetancy!!!


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Who is denier now?


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 22, 2009)

Uhm... global warming?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 23, 2009)

It's official, WND says global warming has been debunked so it must be true. hahahaha

And Wired says it was a hacker, btw.

Hacked E-Mails Fuel Global Warming Debate | Threat Level | Wired.com


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 23, 2009)

Breaking story from the UK, emails stolen show scientist perpetrated a hoax on entire world.

I am cherry picking the stories to post what is relevant and interesting, there is much damage control at the major media outlets, especially at the Wall Street Journal yet even in the WSJ they have to print a bit of the truth

Climate Emails Stoke Debate - WSJ.com



> The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with.
> 
> The IPCC couldn't be reached for comment Sunday.
> 
> ...


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 23, 2009)

I am a little slow, seems you guys already new about this story.


----------



## jodylee (Nov 23, 2009)

The press are reporting it but trying to dumb it down especially as many media outlets are involved in the emails. Every body needs to see this. its the smoking gun.


----------



## tigerbob (Nov 23, 2009)

This story broke a few days ago.

Merge?


----------



## concept (Nov 23, 2009)

Ravi said:


> It's official, WND says global warming has been debunked so it must be true. hahahaha
> 
> And Wired says it was a hacker, btw.
> 
> Hacked E-Mails Fuel Global Warming Debate | Threat Level | Wired.com



Hacked or not, the AGW debate has been thrown down to the ground and is getting ready to tap out.



All of the fear-mongering libs like Gore can squirm and plead and explain to us just wtf he is talking about.

There isn't enough crow in the world to serve at the table.


----------



## IanC (Nov 23, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> yep I read that part... and that makes man made climate change a hoax?




wow! haven't you read any of the pertinent released emails yet? it is down in black and white how many of the figures were faked to show something that wasn't there.

this is a very serious, if not fatal, blow to the AGW crowd


----------



## Ravi (Nov 23, 2009)

I can't wait to find out who the hackers are.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 23, 2009)

IanC said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > yep I read that part... and that makes man made climate change a hoax?
> ...



If this were the only group studying the current warming, you might have a point. But it is not, and the other groups, NASA, NOAA, and RSS, all confirm the Hadly scientists figures.


----------



## concept (Nov 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



How can that be possible wen cru was using ficticious numbers? Are you saying that all of them are fudging the numbers?

Because cru was most certainly making shit up. The hockey stick graph is a good example of that.

Heads are going to roll on this one. Sorry lib.


----------



## jodylee (Nov 23, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> yep I read that part... and that makes man made climate change a hoax?



Some of the people involed are major contributers to the IPCC climate reports 3 &4 thats why its so significant. oh and evedence of collusion by the met office as well


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...




The emails show figures from within those very organizations in collusion with repeating the falsified data.

The Mann hockey stick alone was utilized time and time again by other members of the AGW community.

Time to grow up - you been had....


----------



## concept (Nov 23, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


That wonb't happen.

They STILL claim Clinton was busted over a BJ. 
They always overlook the perjury part of it.

They are quite simply, pathetic.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 23, 2009)

Ravi said:


> It's official, WND says global warming has been debunked so it must be true. hahahaha
> 
> And Wired says it was a hacker, btw.
> 
> Hacked E-Mails Fuel Global Warming Debate | Threat Level | Wired.com



"The files--which can be downloaded here--surely have not been fully plumbed. The ZIP archive weighs in at just under 62 megabytes, or more than 157 MB when uncompressed. But bits that have already been analyzed, as the Washington Post reports, "reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies":

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science. 
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" 
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes. . . .
Mann, who directs Penn State's Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of "vigorous debate" researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. "We shouldn't expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they're speaking in public," he said. 
This is downright Orwellian. What the Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate--to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result. This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong. But it raises a glaring question: If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?"

Settled Science? - WSJ.com


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...


All of them probably have been using at least _*some*_ of the Hadley figures themselves in the first pace.

I'm certain you'd make this connection if you could bother with just a moment of intellectual honesty, long enough to recognize how politicized and incestuous the whole "peer review" thing is.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 23, 2009)

Thinman said:


> I went through some nasty winters, when I was a kid and frankly, I was looking forward to gobal warming.  This is truly depressing.  We will be over run by Canadians trying to escape the mountains of ice from this coming ice age.
> 
> On a serious note, if this is true, the repercussions will be monumental.



I guess I'll need to keep my umbrella open to protect me from all those gullible folks jumping off buildings.

"This is downright Orwellian. What the Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate--to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result. This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong. But it raises a glaring question: If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?

It is hard to see how this is anything less than a definitive refutation of the popular press's contention that global warmism is settled science--a contention that both the Times and the Post repeat in their articles on the revelations: "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument," the Times claims. The Post leads its story by observing that "few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world's climate," and that "nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal." (As blogger Tom Maguire notes, this actually overstates even the IPCC's conclusions.)

The press's view on global warming rests on an appeal to authority: the consensus among scientists that it is real, dangerous and man-caused. But the authority of scientists rests on the integrity of the scientific process, and a "consensus" based on the suppression of alternative hypotheses is, quite simply, a fraudulent one."

Settled Science? - WSJ.com


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> *The press's view on global warming rests on an appeal to authority*: the consensus among scientists that it is real, dangerous and man-caused. But the authority of scientists rests on the integrity of the scientific process, *and a "consensus" based on the suppression of alternative hypotheses is, quite simply, a fraudulent one."*
> 
> Settled Science? - WSJ.com


Jeez....I've been saying that for years!


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

The "out of context" ploy  debunked here:

CRU Emails &#8220;may&#8221; be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story « Watts Up With That?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

Looks like I'm not the only one to recognize the questionable practice of parroting the line that this is a product of a hacking:


> Incidentally, also note how all of these outlets emphasize as fact, up front, that these documents, codes, data and emails are the product of* hackers (this has grown from a hacker when the story first ran, though no outlet has offered any explanation for that change let alone evidence of the hacking). They simply accept that the University of East Anglias computers were hacked, on the word of people who are shown by what was hacked to be liars and charlatans and who have an interest in making the story be something other than the substance of the material.*
> 
> I do not know if the computers were hacked. I do know that there is just as much reason to suspect that the documents were posted by someone on the inside who still possesses a conscience, a whistleblower. Remember that this incident occurred after the most recent and audacious twist in the universitys Climatic Research Unit refusal of access to basic raw data and other material necessary to validate their claims serving as the basis for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol (and Kyoto II), cap-and-trade, and so on. This was a four-year campaign to hide material  a campaign whose tactics were also admitted to in the alleged emails now made public.



Big Government » Blog Archive » Media Missing the Plot on &#8216;Climate Gate&#8217;: It&#8217;s the Fraud, Stupid!


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 23, 2009)

Dude said:


> Looks like I'm not the only one to recognize the questionable practice of parroting the line that this is a product of a hacking:
> 
> 
> > Incidentally, also note how all of these outlets emphasize as fact, up front, that these documents, codes, data and emails are the product of* &#8220;hackers&#8221; (this has grown from &#8220;a hacker&#8221; when the story first ran, though no outlet has offered any explanation for that change let alone evidence of the hacking). They simply accept that the University of East Anglia&#8217;s computers were hacked, on the word of people who are shown by what was hacked to be liars and charlatans and who have an interest in making the story be something other than the substance of the material.*
> ...



YES - the individual or individuals are just as likely if not more so to be whistleblowers - not "hackers".

Ladies and gentlemen, (and Ravi) you are witnessing the dismantling of a global conspiracy  - the collusion of government/corporate-sponsored scientists working to forge far-reaching policy of many for the considerable benefit of the very few.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 23, 2009)

Dr Timothy Ball regarding the emails. Of particular note are his comments regarding the highly manipulated peer review process, the control of the Hadley global temperature data, and the collusion within the academic publishing world regarding the topic of global warming...

___

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac[/ame]


----------



## Ravi (Nov 23, 2009)

Dude said:


> The "out of context" ploy  debunked here:
> 
> CRU Emails may be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story « Watts Up With That?




Google this: decline tree ring 1960 climate

and you'll find out what the "decline" was, more than you'll ever want to know about tree rings, and why my favorite comment at your link was


> Once again, you guys are making mountains out of ant hills. This is just normal data processing per the 1960 divergence problem as shown by NUMEROUS sources. This is what happens when a bunch of uninformed amateurs try and debunk real scientists. Leave the science to the scientists and go back to your day jobs as custodians, wal-mart employees and laborers.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

A timeline of events that also tends to debunk the "hackers" angle:

CRU Refuses FOI Request « Climate Audit &#8211; mirror site

Looks like an insider with a conscience couldn't abide blatant disregard for and stonewalling of FOIA requests.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 23, 2009)

Dude said:


> Looks like I'm not the only one to recognize the questionable practice of parroting the line that this is a product of a hacking:
> 
> 
> > Incidentally, also note how all of these outlets emphasize as fact, up front, that these documents, codes, data and emails are the product of* hackers (this has grown from a hacker when the story first ran, though no outlet has offered any explanation for that change let alone evidence of the hacking). They simply accept that the University of East Anglias computers were hacked, on the word of people who are shown by what was hacked to be liars and charlatans and who have an interest in making the story be something other than the substance of the material.*
> ...


 "Big Government"  Why not just link to Ann Coulter? Maybe eots and Terral have a place for you on their conspiracy theory board of directors.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

Ravi said:


> "Big Government"  Why not just link to Ann Coulter? Maybe eots and Terral have a place for you on their conspiracy theory board of directors.


*Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person).* This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?"

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 23, 2009)

The great 'global warming' hoax



> The great 'global warming' hoax
> Posted: November 23, 2009
> 1:00 am Eastern
> 
> ...



and



> Neither the computer models nor Gore could explain the fact that from 1998 to 2008 (the last full year of surface temperature readings), the Earth did not keep warming (as the models had predicted). It actually cooled. Neither the computer models nor Gore could explain the dramatic drop in the number and severity of Atlantic hurricanes when both the models and Gore had predicted ever more Katrinas every year.
> 
> Now this. The final nail in the "climate change" dogma's coffin?
> 
> ...




I have been saying for years this was some BS driven by the desire to control and to make money. 

Not that I expect any of you libs to believe it.

on a funny side not. the NY times, who has no trouble publishing our nation Defense secrets, has put out the lame ass excuse that these Emails were taken out of context, and that they will not publish "emails that were never meant for the public to see"

can you say Bullshit


----------



## Ravi (Nov 23, 2009)

You may call it whatever you wish. I do not make a habit of believing partisan blog sites.

I hope your research on tree rings and climate data goes well.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

I don't suppose you've noticed the absence of the usual "experts" on this subject, and that you and Jay Canschmuck are the only ones who've defended these charlatans, have you?


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

_shouldn't his be in conspiracy theories_ ?....sorry but I have waited for years to say that


----------



## Ravi (Nov 23, 2009)

An ad hominem attack? The horror.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 23, 2009)

so exactly how many scientists have been implicated in this hacking drama?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 23, 2009)

Prof. Dud I didn't defend anyone. If there is a guilty party then I hope they are discredited and face the consequences of their actions and when they do I will still believe what 90% of the worlds credible scientists have to say about climate change over douchebag posters like you.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> so exactly how many scientists have been implicated in this hacking drama?


All of them at CRU and those with whom they've corresponded, including people at NASA and NOAA.

This is getting bigger by the minute.

BTW...The amount of information released _*so far*_ (about 250Gs) would've taken considerable time to hack, zip and burn to a CD or flash drive, leaving a clear trail back to a server and subsequently to the hacker.

This is _*definitely*_ an insider dropping the dime.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 23, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Prof. Dud I didn't defend anyone. If there is a guilty party then I hope they are discredited and face the consequences of their actions and when they do I will still believe what 90% of the worlds credible scientists have to say about climate change over douchebag posters like you.


Yep.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 23, 2009)

The hacker/hackers should get spanked as well.



> A hack that exposed thousands of private e-mails and documents about global warming from a University of East Anglia climate change research center Friday could be used for more malicious attacks down the road, as hackers use cybercrime to further political agendas, security experts say. "Because they took a lot of e-mails, there's a little bit of an extra risk. Their company has been a victim of an attack," said Chester Wisniewski, senior security advisor for Sophos. "Once you know everyone's e-mail addresses, it makes you much more susceptible to phishing attacks."


http://www.crn.com/security/221900742;jsessionid=PIS3DSTXIVYMLQE1GHOSKH4ATMY32JVN


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

Dude said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > "Big Government"  Why not just link to Ann Coulter? Maybe eots and Terral have a place for you on their conspiracy theory board of directors.
> ...



I see..so whats this technique called ?....but ravi we want you for our conspiracy board of 
directors as I much prefer your conspiracy theory that polar bear hating criminals have falsified information to support the polar bear hating tinfoil haters that believe in this conspiracy that there is some sort of big government at work and global warming is a tax grab and denying the reality we have a small and benevolent government and its getting hotter than hades in here...


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 23, 2009)

This is going to be very interesting.  It could be the best thing that's happened in this whole debate because claims are going to have to be strongly defended on both sides of the debate.  As always,_ cui bono,_ is the guide.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Prof. Dud I didn't defend anyone. If there is a guilty party then I hope they are discredited and face the consequences of their actions and when they do I will still believe what 90% of the worlds credible scientists have to say about climate change over douchebag posters like you.


Your 90% number is still an outright lie, no matter how many times you repeat it.

And now, that "credibility" notion is of extremely dubious merit as well.


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 23, 2009)

Yes liberals will say this post should be there because they will say these Emails that prove their lies are the conspiracy not the Global Warming Movement.

however if you do your research and read the emails its clear who is doing the lying and misleading.

(lets not include that temperature data because it "does not fit with the goal of our study" said goal being Proving GLobal Warming is man made and man driven, and more to the point getting nations and people to pony up money to fight it.)

Let the denials and name calling begin.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 23, 2009)

eots said:


> _shouldn't his be in conspiracy theories_ ?....sorry but I have waited for years to say that





Good one eots


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 23, 2009)

*The Dud - "A GlobalClimateCoolerWarmering Conspiracy?* 
Say it ain't so, Joe! 

So much for the credibility of that mythical "90% of scientists"!"



so this conspiracy does include 90% of the worlds scientists?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 23, 2009)

Scientific opinion on climate change and global warming

SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE
Environmental groups have warned of the contribution to climate change from human activities for decades. It has taken the scientific community many years to begin making definitive statements about the accuracy of these claims. *It should be noted that while the overwhelming majority of scientists now accept that human activities are a major cause of global warming, there is still a small number of scientists who disagree with these conclusions.
*


evidence supporting global warming & human causes
The fact that carbon dioxide absorbs and emits IR radiation has been known for over a century. Gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than four hundred thousand years, with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence. This record tells us that carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall tightly together. The recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years and this is human-caused.


The historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.40.8 °C over the last 100 years, and the current warmth is unusual in the past 1000 years. Climate change attribution studies using both models and observations find that the warming of the last 50 years is likely caused by human activity. Natural variability (including solar variation) alone cannot explain the recent change. Climate models can reproduce the observed trend only when greenhouse gas forcing is included.


There is a scientific consensus behind all of the above, reflected in official statements by professional associations related to climate science. Humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment and if it turns out badly  however that is defined  we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries into the future. 


Climate models predict more warming, and other climate effects such as sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, drought and heat waves in the future.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

Charles_Main said:


> Yes liberals will say this post should be there because they will say these Emails that prove their lies are the conspiracy not the Global Warming Movement.
> 
> however if you do your research and read the emails its clear who is doing the lying and misleading.
> 
> ...


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> *The Dud - "A GlobalClimateCoolerWarmering Conspiracy?*
> Say it ain't so, Joe!
> 
> So much for the credibility of that mythical "90% of scientists"!"
> ...



no but it include gullible buffon's that believe if corporate controlled media says 90% of scientist agree it is therefore an accurate number


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 23, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> yep I read that part... and that makes man made climate change a hoax?



No but the content of the Emails in question sure seem to point that way. Why would you leave out Data that did not jive with your Goal of Proving Warming? You do know what that means right. They left out Data that showed things were cooling in order to make it appear things were warming. In an effort to prove their theory. What else is that but a conspiracy? 


> emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will &#8220;peer review&#8221; be used to shout down sceptics.



On A side not. I think the very fact this Real life story was moved to the conspiracy section proves my Opinion that this board is controlled by Liberals. 

This thread does not belong here. This is a real and ongoing breaking story. 

You should be moving the Global warming nuts posts from enviro to here instead of this one.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 23, 2009)

Charles_Main said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > yep I read that part... and that makes man made climate change a hoax?
> ...


____

Agreed - this is a current events thread, with considerable political implications...


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 23, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Climate models predict more warming, and other climate effects such as sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, drought and heat waves in the future.



Models that are now questionable at best according to these released Emails.

the Simple fact is they were wrong. The Models that is. The Reason this is all coming out now is because they cant hide it any longer. Any Moron can see the earth has been cooling for going on a decade. 

The Models are wrong, deal with it.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

Charles_Main said:


> This thread does not belong here.* This is a real and ongoing breaking story. *
> 
> You should be moving the Global warming nuts posts from enviro to here instead of this one.


This thread isn't in the conspiracy section just for that reason.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 23, 2009)

Eots, was this report about scientific consensus on man made climate change put together by the coporate media and even if it was would that change what the scientists agree about?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 23, 2009)

Charles_Main said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > yep I read that part... and that makes man made climate change a hoax?
> ...





thanx for your opinion and I will take it for what it is  - the opinion of an anonymous poster on a message board. I take it  you have personally gone over the hacked e-mails and know the contents and who they implicate?


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 23, 2009)

Dude said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > This thread does not belong here.* This is a real and ongoing breaking story. *
> ...




People actually thought this should be in the conspiracy section?

Good Lord...


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Eots, was this report about scientific consensus on man made climate change put together by the coporate media and even if it was would that change what the scientists agree about?


"Consensus" isn't science, it's politics.

That a bunch of people in an echo chamber largely agree on most everything is no big news...It happens every four years at DNC and RNC conventions.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 23, 2009)

Charles_Main said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Climate models predict more warming, and other climate effects such as sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, drought and heat waves in the future.
> ...



do you have any scientific data to back up your opinion or are you just going to warm the planet back up running your mouth here?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 23, 2009)

Consensus is defined in English as, firstly, general agreement and, secondly, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally to feel together.[1]

The formal process of achieving consensus ideally requires serious treatment of the considered opinion of each group member: those advocating the adoption, say, of a particular course of action, genuinely wish to hear those who may be against the proposal, since discussion, it is supposed, can only enhance ultimate consensus. The hope is that in such circumstances action, or the adoption of group opinion, without resolution of dissent will be rare. A consensus rather than a voting process is often employed with this intention, as well as to minimize any possible damage to inter-personal relationships.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Consensus is defined in English as, firstly, general agreement and, secondly, group solidarity of _*belief or sentiment*_. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning_* literally to feel together.*_[1]


I don't need to "feel" or "believe" anything to prove that rising warm moist air forms cumulus clouds. I can physically prove that again and again and again.

"Feeling" isn't science.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 23, 2009)

Professor Dud rides again!


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

I'm deeply aware of what words mean, kanucklehead.

Part of what is a glaring tip-off that this has been a cam all along has been the squishy semantics.

But you just go ahead and


----------



## Ravi (Nov 23, 2009)

> For one thing, the researchers involved were only a handful out of thousands across the world that have contributed to a vast convergence of data that shows the world has warmed.



Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer | Green Business | Reuters

I look forward to finding out who the hacker/hackers are.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

There were no hackers. If there were, they would have been tracked down via their servers and IPs.....Go ask KK.

The "hackers" talking point is a loser.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 23, 2009)

I don't need to "feel" or "believe" anything to prove that rising warm moist air forms cumulus clouds. I can physically prove that again and again and again.

 the Dud does a wicked Brick the weatherman impression!


----------



## Ravi (Nov 23, 2009)

Dude said:


> There were no hackers. If there were, they would have been tracked down via their servers and IPs.....Go ask KK.
> 
> The "hackers" talking point is a loser.


Oh, they will be...


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> the Dud does a wicked Brick the weatherman impression!


Wrong, yet again, turd burglar.

I'm a pilot.


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Eots, was this report about scientific consensus on man made climate change put together by the coporate media and even if it was would that change what the scientists agree about?



well it was certainly chosen over other voices to disseminate to the masses and then there is always the issue of funding...follow the money...tobacco companies put out lots of science saying the majority of scientist think smoking is harmless at one time and lets not forget 3 out of 4 dentist recommend Colgate


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 23, 2009)

I love how I see people trying to say these Email involve only a small number of Researchers. 

Nothing could be more misleading. These emails come from the HOLY GRAIL as far as climate study. The models and predictions put out by these people are used by everyone else. The DATA they collect is used by everyone else, and that DATA is being called into question.

This is not just some fringe group. These are the very leaders of the movement.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 23, 2009)

Charles_Main said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...


That's just another conspiracy.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 23, 2009)

eots said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Eots, was this report about scientific consensus on man made climate change put together by the coporate media and even if it was would that change what the scientists agree about?
> ...



I certainly will not argue the point that "Global Warming" has it's share of  bandwagoneers whose only wish will be to profit monitarily or politicaly from the issue as it is with just about every other issue we face and there are liars on both sides of the issue but when it comes to whether or not man made climate change actually exists I am going to stick with what is a general agreement among our scientists..... all the rest is just babble to me.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 23, 2009)

Charles_Main said:


> I love how I see people trying to say these Email involve only a small number of Researchers.
> 
> Nothing could be more misleading. These emails come from the HOLY GRAIL as far as climate study. The models and predictions put out by these people are used by everyone else. The DATA they collect is used by everyone else, and that DATA is being called into question.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 23, 2009)

Dude said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > the Dud does a wicked Brick the weatherman impression!
> ...



then stick to flying the friendly skies and leave the science to scientists chuck-o


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 23, 2009)

The confusion about this thread being moved or not was my fault.

See the first post I made on this thread was actually a new post on this subject. Apparently some power mad Mod merged my post into this one so when I saw my post (I hate to say it but I told you so) had been moved. I just assumed lol. 

Why they would merge it into another post I have no idea. Seems rather confusing to me.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

All threads on this topic are being merged into the original.

Yours was about the fifth or sixth thread started since the story broke on Friday.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 23, 2009)

got any tips on how to fly in Global Warming?


----------



## concept (Nov 23, 2009)

Dude said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > "Big Government"  Why not just link to Ann Coulter? Maybe eots and Terral have a place for you on their conspiracy theory board of directors.
> ...



This is the lib MO of critical theory.

Attack, marginalize and ridicule. Rinse and repeat as needed until the masses believe the subject is a kook.

We've seen this before. Bush, cheney, Bork, Joe the Plumber, Palin and anyone that poses a threat to the lib stranglehold.

What's happening now is that libs hold 99% of the cards. They hear their talking points repeated by their shills in the media and forget that they gave them the talking points to begin with.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 23, 2009)

So, what now?

Are we, who were called "deniers" still deniers, or we were right all along? 

What are now those who were calling us deniers?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 23, 2009)

No, you are now officially conspiracy theorists.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

Nothing theoretical about 250Gs of e-mails and documents, little sister.


----------



## Annie (Nov 23, 2009)

Dude said:


> Nothing theoretical about 250Gs of e-mails and documents, little sister.



Indeed. The admission these were 'true' should make it a front page story. That it's not, Ravi should be praising the MSM.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 23, 2009)

Dude said:


> Nothing theoretical about 250Gs of e-mails and documents, little sister.


True enough...but I personally haven't seen anything in them that leads me to believe these eggheads were involved in a hoax...let alone that the majority of scientists were.

That's the conspiracy...thinking what was in those emails disproves global warming.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 23, 2009)

Annie said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing theoretical about 250Gs of e-mails and documents, little sister.
> ...


Maybe the MSM isn't as gullible as you are...though I have read articles on CNN and Reuters and many other "main" stream sites about this.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing theoretical about 250Gs of e-mails and documents, little sister.
> ...


That's only because you haven't looked and are relying upon others to do your research and thinking for you.

Nothing new under the sun there.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 23, 2009)

Ravi said:


> No, you are now officially conspiracy theorists.



Is exposing someone elses lies conspiracy?

Well at the very least, those e-mails show how "scientists" sluff their results to come to a conclusion that benefits their agendas.

You cant simply wax out entire decades of information, to bolster a result that is nothing short of fraudulent. For the die hard GWer, where obviously you put yourself, this is more evidence that shows just how much fraud there is in the scientific community. Just because someone has the label "scientist" doesnt make them immune to fluffing numbers. They are still human beings with their own biases.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 23, 2009)

Dude said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



One of the e-mails...



> From: Tom Wigley [...]
> To: Phil Jones [...]
> Subject: 1940s
> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
> ...


----------



## Annie (Nov 23, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing theoretical about 250Gs of e-mails and documents, little sister.
> ...



Are you really saying this after reading? Maybe  before reading?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 23, 2009)

Dude said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


Have fun with your ad homs...I'll enjoy laughing at your partisanship.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 23, 2009)

Annie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Nah, she's just another denier.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 23, 2009)

Just follow the money!



> EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem says Kyoto "*is not a simple environmental issue, where you can say scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations, this is about the economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what is at stake and that is why it is serious*," she declaimed. And French President Jacques Chirac has termed the Kyoto Protocol "the *first component of authentic global governance*."



Prophets, False Prophets and Profiteers


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Ad hom nothing. Anyone who doesn't see something terribly amiss here either isn't looking or is in denial.

But if exaggerating numbers, destroying conflicting evidence and attempting to blackball other people and publications who don't toe your line isn't a big deal, that tells everyone else more about your partisanship than anything else.


----------



## Toro (Nov 23, 2009)

> The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.
> 
> The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.
> 
> ...



Climate Emails Stoke Debate - WSJ.com


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 23, 2009)

Toro said:


> Climate Emails Stoke Debate - WSJ.com



Thanks for the link Toro.

Suddenly, it's quiet here...

These emails perfectly fits assumed narrative of many. It's been in the air for quite some time that social science along with other sciences has experimental conclusion often written concurrently with the grant check. Agenda science was everywhere and pretty easy to "hokey up" when the science was squishy. Just ask Al Gore did he benefit from it. Climate science is almost as squishy, and  there is probably more agenda in the subject than any other area of study. The stakes are beyond ordinary understanding and to think is was a game played on the up and up is to disregard all of history. There are always cheaters when there's money in the game.

I wonder if these news will be driven by nothing besides the alternative media? I doubt it. Left have such a stranglehold and will ignore the matter for as long they need to push their cap & trade agenda, or will just drive the attention to something else. But it's a start.

I am surprised that nobody replied with: But Bush...


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 23, 2009)

In the other news... this is hilarious! 



> In a dramatic shift, the Chamber of Commerce announced Monday that it is throwing its support behind climate change legislation making its way through the U.S. Senate.



CNBC, Reuters fall for climate hoax

Oops,,, it didn't happen. Check out the link and videos at the link. When you want to drink the cool aid,  it is so easy.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 23, 2009)

The New York Times is refusing to publish the emails...

___

NYTimes: We Won't Publish "Statements that Were Never Intended for the Public Eye."
With the release of hundreds of emails by scientists advocates of global warming showing obvious and entirely inappropriate collusion by the authors -- including attempts to suppress dissent, to punish journals that publish peer-reviewed studies casting doubt on global warming, and to manipulate data to bolster their own arguments -- even the New York Times is forced to concede that "the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists." But apparently the paper's environmental blog, Dot Earth, is taking a pass on publishing any of the documents and emails that are now circulating. Andrew Revkin, the author of that blog, writes,


_*The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won&#8217;t be posted here.*_


This is the position of the New York Times when given the chance to publish sensitive information that might hinder the liberal agenda. Of course, when the choice is between publishing classified information that might endanger the lives of U.S. troops in the field or intelligence programs vital to national security, that information is published without hesitation by the nation's paper of record. But in this case -- the documents were "never intended for the public eye," so the New York Times will take a pass. I guess that policy wasn't in place when Neil Sheehan was working at the paper.

As a journalist, there is no greater glory than publishing materials that were not meant to be published. If I could, I would only publish emails and documents that were never meant to see the light of day -- *though, unlike the New York Times, I draw the line at jeopardizing the lives of American troops rather than jeopardizing the contrived "consensus" on global warming.*


The Weekly Standard


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

_*



			The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they wont be posted here.
		
Click to expand...

*_Didn't stop them when they published the Pentagon Papers.


----------



## Dr.House (Nov 23, 2009)

I believe the zip file is readily available from many sources...

Hard to slow information once it's been released on Algore's interwebs...  (lol - how ironic, huh?)


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 23, 2009)

Dude said:


> _*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How dare you accuse the NYT of cherry-picking principles!!!!

Inconceivable!!!!


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 23, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> I believe the zip file is readily available from many sources...
> 
> Hard to slow information once it's been released on Algore's interwebs...  (lol - how ironic, huh?)



Ah, but the arrogance of the NYT, even though the WSJ far surpasses it in weekly readership, is that nothing exists until the Times says it exists...


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> I believe the zip file is readily available from many sources...
> 
> Hard to slow information once it's been released on Algore's interwebs...  (lol - how ironic, huh?)


They're unzipped and ready for perusal *HERE*


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 23, 2009)

Dude said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the zip file is readily available from many sources...
> ...




This thread has almost as many views as a Palin thread!  

(That's actually pretty sad as this developing story is much bigger and more important than Sarah Palin...)


----------



## Dr.House (Nov 23, 2009)

Dude said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the zip file is readily available from many sources...
> ...



And searchable...  Thanks...


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 23, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > _*
> ...



Do you think they will publish anything like this?

US Senate Minority Report


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 23, 2009)

Ame®icano;1745851 said:
			
		

> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...




Hey - don't you know 90% of scientists believe in global warming????

How dare you link such rubbish!!!!

Where is Chris when you need him?

Old Rocks??


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 23, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Ame®icano;1745851 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why would anyone need those two Carbonites? They keep blabbering about things they have no knowledge about and when you ask them a question they ignore you or turn to insults. They never answer your question, but they insist you answer theirs. I call them Carbonites, which is similar to the Canaanites. Only difference between those two is that Canaanites sacrificed humans to the gods, and the Carbonites want to sacrifice our hard *earned* dollars to the Carbon gods. They probably followed Al Gore example and invested a pile of money in carbon trading stocks, expecting to get in on the ground floor and all they got a bath in red ink. No wonder why they are supporting Cap & Trade...


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 23, 2009)

Global Warmer issues apology...

___

From Andrew Bolt:

Even George Monbiot, one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked:

It&#8217;s no use pretending that this isn&#8217;t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I&#8217;m dismayed and deeply shaken by them. 

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request. 
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed. 

Sure, Monbiot claims the fudging of what he extremely optimistically puts as just &#8220;three or four&#8221; scientists doesn&#8217;t knock over the whole global warming edifice, yet&#8230;

If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly:

*I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.*

Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.


Monbiot issues an unprecedented apology « Watts Up With That?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

Wow...Courageous.


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

this is huge dude...


----------



## Ravi (Nov 24, 2009)




----------



## IanC (Nov 24, 2009)

> People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:
> 
> function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
> datathresh=datathresh
> ...



&#8220;these will be artificially adjusted&#8221; « Climate Audit &#8211; mirror site


sorry if this info has already been posted. it is pretty blatant proof of dishonesty


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Nov 24, 2009)

It would be nice to see Gore behind  bars.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 24, 2009)

Ame®icano;1745851 said:
			
		

> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Why should anyone care to read what that bunch of liars claim?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 24, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Ame®icano;1745851 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK, dingbat, even if 700 real scientists, the number is doubtful, considering the source, state that global warming is not happening, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that global Warming is a fact, is a clear and present danger, and that we are the primary cause of it.

Now that is well over 90% of the scientists in the world.

Now pull some more rubbish out of your ass.


----------



## concept (Nov 24, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Ame®icano;1745851 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Apologist says what?


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 24, 2009)

One of the more scathing reports on the climate scandal from a (sorta) mainstream media source...



____

*EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global coolingRate this story*


*Junk science exposed among climate-change believers*

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the *baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change. *

It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England.* Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims. *

...In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!" 

At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. *Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming. *


Full article here:

EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling - Washington Times


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 24, 2009)

Unbelievable...

___

From: Keith Briffa To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: quick note on TAR Date: Sun Apr 29 19:53:16 2007 
Mike
your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - often wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these kind words *. I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. I* worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we were basically railroaded by Susan*. I am happy to pass the mantle on to someone else next time. I feel I have basically produced nothing original or substantive of my own since this whole process started. I am at this moment , having to work on the ENV submission to the forthcoming UK Research Assessment exercise , again instead of actually doing some useful research ! Anyway thanks again Mike.... really appreciated when it comes from you very best wishes 

small dead animals: The Sound Of All Hell Breaking Loose: Now Searchable!


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 24, 2009)

*'The ClimateGate scandal exposes man-made global warming fears as quite simply the best science that agenda driven activists can manufacture. Claims that the UN IPCC is the 'gold standard' of scientific research have been forever tarnished.'*

Saturday, November 21, 2009By Marc Morano  &#8211;  Climate Depot


http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3954/Statement-by-Marc-Morano-of-Climate-Depot


----------



## concept (Nov 24, 2009)

Sham Wow.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 24, 2009)




----------



## hjmick (Nov 24, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> yep I read that part... and that makes man made climate change a hoax?



No, it's always been a hoax as described by it's supporters. These e-mails simply prove this fact.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 24, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Ame®icano;1745851 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My question exactly......Why should anyone pay attention to anyone associated with CRU, right up to and including IPCC?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 24, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1745851 said:
> ...


IOW, you have no hard and independently verifiable data to back up your ridiculous 90% claim...Like we didn't already know that.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 24, 2009)

Maybe he gets confused and means to say 09% of scientists...


----------



## Oddball (Nov 24, 2009)

IanC said:


> > People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:
> >
> > function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
> > datathresh=datathresh
> ...


No, it hadn't...Thank you.


----------



## mal (Nov 24, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> so hacked e-mails are proof a of a conspiracy? .....right! -  snore....next.



^Wouldn't Believe it if New York was Buried in Ice...

Which Scientists say is a Natural Cycle that is Coming in Thousands of Years REGARDLESS of what we do...



peace...


----------



## Ravi (Nov 24, 2009)

IanC said:


> > People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:
> >
> > function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
> > datathresh=datathresh
> ...


Yes, and it was debunked earlier in the thread.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 24, 2009)

> If the argument isnt going your way, close it down. This was ever the way of liberal-left. Criticize the European Socialist Superstate and youre a Little Englander; object to wind farms spoiling your view and youre a NIMBY; demand curbs on immigration and youre a racist; desire better education for your kids and youre elitist; question the current majority scientific view on AGW and youre a Denier who deserves only to be scorned, vilified and preferably silenced.
> 
> We have seen plenty examples of that last kind of bullying in the Climategate scandal (Warmergate, as Mark Steyn has wittily christened it: damn! Wish Id thought of that): scientists ganging up to shut scientists who disagree with them out of the peer-review process; scientists actually gloating over their opponents deaths.



Climategate reminds us of the liberal-left&#8217;s visceral loathing of open debate &#8211; Telegraph Blogs


----------



## mal (Nov 24, 2009)

Dude said:


> > If the argument isnt going your way, close it down. This was ever the way of liberal-left. Criticize the European Socialist Superstate and youre a Little Englander; object to wind farms spoiling your view and youre a NIMBY; demand curbs on immigration and youre a racist; desire better education for your kids and youre elitist; question the current majority scientific view on AGW and youre a Denier who deserves only to be scorned, vilified and preferably silenced.
> >
> > We have seen plenty examples of that last kind of bullying in the Climategate scandal (Warmergate, as Mark Steyn has wittily christened it: damn! Wish Id thought of that): scientists ganging up to shut scientists who disagree with them out of the peer-review process; scientists actually gloating over their opponents deaths.
> 
> ...



Why do you want Everyone to Die, Dude?...

Why do you Hate the Planet?... 



peace...


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 24, 2009)

And the attacks against Global Warming keep coming...

___

November 24, 2009
ClimateGate: The Fix is In
By Robert Tracinski

In early October, I covered a breaking story about evidence of corruption in the basic temperature records maintained by key scientific advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Global warming "skeptics" had unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.

But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have already named it "Climategate."

...*But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma*. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. *If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.*

And that is precisely what we find.

You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." *Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."* That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that *"All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."*

*...The picture that emerges is simple. In any discussion of global warming, either in the scientific literature or in the mainstream media, the outcome is always predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced by the CRU are always tricked out to show an upward-sloping "hockey stick," every discussion of global warming has to show that it is occurring and that humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared as "unscientific" precisely because it threatens the established dogma.*

*This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.*


Full article here:


RealClearPolitics - ClimateGate: The Fix is In


----------



## Oddball (Nov 24, 2009)

Lawsuits are already in the works, for evasion of  FOIA requests:



> *"Climate Gate" Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA*
> 
> Posted by Chris Horner on 11.24.09 @ 9:46AM
> 
> ...



The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 24, 2009)

Word?  The jig is up.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 24, 2009)

hjmick said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > yep I read that part... and that makes man made climate change a hoax?
> ...



conspiracy nut huh? - good for you.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 24, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > so hacked e-mails are proof a of a conspiracy? .....right! -  snore....next.
> ...



I'm sorry you are a fucking hack but can we see a link?


----------



## sitarro (Nov 24, 2009)

So......... How's that peer review working for all of you smug science people?

Rejoice! The whole thing was a hoax, Rush was right! The earth isn't being destroyed by mankind! It was all a load of crap that greedy people and their pet "scientist" have shit on the whole world!


Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of &#8216;Anthropogenic Global Warming&#8217;? &#8211; Telegraph Blogs


 By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009


If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia&#8217;s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files &#8211; including 1079 emails and 72 documents &#8211; you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be &#8220;the greatest in modern science&#8221;. These alleged emails &#8211; supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory &#8211; suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

*continued at link*


EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling - Washington Times


EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling

Junk science exposed among climate-change believers
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.

It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."

*continued at link*


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 24, 2009)

Junk science exposed among climate-change believers -  
and there is no junk science on the deniers side of course!..... What are the majority of the worlds credible scientists in agreement about again?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 24, 2009)

Chrissy?...Is that you?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 24, 2009)

Threads like this just are an example of how desperate the man-made climate change deniers have become....... they have nothing scientific on their side except for the scientists they can buy off so all they are left with is conspiracy theories and media inuendo - sooo sad.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 24, 2009)

This thread is demonstration of how the "science" has been faked and that the "deniers", who can't come up with hard and verifiable numbers (like that oft-parroted 90% myth), are the GlobalClimateCoolerWarmering scaremonger cargo cultists, like you.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 24, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Threads like this just are an example of how desperate the man-made climate change deniers have become....... they have nothing scientific on their side except for the scientists they can buy off so all they are left with is conspiracy theories and media inuendo - sooo sad.





Tough times for you Jay - you can always go back to your days supporting Britney...


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc[/ame]


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Nov 24, 2009)

The debate is now over.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 24, 2009)

Time for Jay, Chris, and Old Rocks to hit the road...


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRYISoCY7z8&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 24, 2009)

More premature acclamation.  Debate over?  I think not.  What we need are facts and what we need is an understanding of how science is done and what has been happening in this trail of emails which goes back, I believe, some years.  We need to know the current state of knowledge about the claims concerning climate change. The debate is far from over.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 24, 2009)

*"I think what he&#8217;s saying is God&#8217;s still up there. We&#8217;re going through these cycles...** I really believe that a lot of people are in denial who want to hang their hat on the fact, **that they believe is a fact, that man-made gases, anthropogenic gases, are causing **global warming. The science really isn&#8217;t there." *
-- Jim Inhofe, the 21st Century Flat Earther *Link* 

*"God was "up there" during Katrina, 9/11, WWI and WWII. He was up there **during Pompeii and the Irish Potato famine. The list goes on and on..." *
-- hellinabucket, *Link* 

*"Just think, this fool has constituents. To these people, if you follow the bible, **you don&#8217;t need any more education." *
-- wisdomofwords, *Link* 

*"Is this buffoon merely playing to the base or is he really that frickin stupid?" *
-- Exit Stage Left, *Link* 

*"The science isn&#8217;t there to support global warming, but it supports **the existance of a god creator that lives in the sky?"* 
-- Okie Dokie, *Link*


----------



## Oddball (Nov 24, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> More premature acclamation.  Debate over?  I think not.  What we need are facts and what we need is an understanding of how science is done and what has been happening in this trail of emails which goes back, I believe, some years.  We need to know the current state of knowledge about the claims concerning climate change. The debate is far from over.


While I don't believe the debate is necessarily over, this revelation and scandal cast into serious doubt not only the "research" of the CRU, but all those who reviewed and verified it as accurate and those whose subsequent findings were based upon both CRU's cooked numbers and the conclusions of those reviewers.

This is an instance where nearly everyone within the AGW academic/political structure could well have the misinformation clap.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 24, 2009)

Dude said:


> This thread is demonstration of how the "science" has been faked and that the "deniers", who can't come up with hard and verifiable numbers (like that oft-parroted 90% myth), are the GlobalClimateCoolerWarmering scaremonger cargo cultists, like you.



so the majority of the worlds scientists have been faking it - and your proof is some hacked e-mails from how many people ? -


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 24, 2009)

anyways I will leave you and the rest of your moronic friends to spinning yourselves silly.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 24, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> More premature acclamation.  Debate over?  I think not.  What we need are facts and what we need is an understanding of how science is done and what has been happening in this trail of emails which goes back, I believe, some years.  We need to know the current state of knowledge about the claims concerning climate change. The debate is far from over.


I agree. But this gives a lot of people something to latch onto without actually giving it any thought other than what they read on partisan blogs.

For instance, the other day I debunked the claim that the code was written to make data that was false look like it was real. But that was ignored by one and all...when all it took was a little search on the internet to find out about tree rings and data after 1960. Now the NYT has finally written something about it.



> Mann said the second portion of Jones' message referred to a known problem with certain temperature records gleaned from tree rings. Up until 1960, temperature records measured by weather stations agree with records extrapolated from tree rings. But after 1960, it's a different story. Some of the trees no longer accurately register temperature variations.
> That's a problem that CRU scientist Keith Briffa identified in a journal article more than 10 years ago, Mann said, arguing that scientists shouldn't use the inaccurate post-1960 data.


Stolen E-Mails Sharpen a Brawl Between Climate Scientists and Skeptics - NYTimes.com


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 24, 2009)

Dude said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > More premature acclamation.  Debate over?  I think not.  What we need are facts and what we need is an understanding of how science is done and what has been happening in this trail of emails which goes back, I believe, some years.  We need to know the current state of knowledge about the claims concerning climate change. The debate is far from over.
> ...



Indeed they might.  I have no doubt that science, like any other human endeavour, is capable of producing egotistical, lying bastards (although politics has science snookered on that one) and if there's been skullduggery here then the individuals who perpetrated it should be sorted out.  We know that more than one researcher has been busted for making data fit a hypothesis, but then sometimes that assertion loses it effect in the wake of further knowledge.  Sometimes intuition is ahead of current knowledge 

Oil-drop experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But that's not an excuse for wholesale fabrication.  And as I say, if that is the case here then get the pitchforks out.  Anyway this isn't bad thing, it's good to have a bit of sunlight (sorry) on an issue to see what's really going on.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 24, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> anyways I will leave you and the rest of your moronic friends to spinning yourselves silly.




Ahhh, Canuck had his wittle feewings hurt....


----------



## Ringel05 (Nov 24, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Diuretic said:
> ...



This is not to refute or acknowledge the OP, it is only FYI and is something I have suspected for a couple of decades.  It's the proverbial tip of the iceberg and relates to part of your post.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 24, 2009)

Dude said:


> Say it ain't so, Joe!
> 
> So much for the credibility of that mythical "90% of scientists"!
> 
> ...



The "Science" might be all bullshit but the threat of GolbalWarmerCoolering Global
 CoolerWarmerinng The Great Climatic Googly Moogly Remains Real!

There's not a moment to lose!  We must put Al Gore in charge of the planet!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 24, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> yep I read that part... and that makes man made climate change a hoax?



Jay, you're not too fucking bright are you?


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 24, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > yep I read that part... and that makes man made climate change a hoax?
> ...




He ranks alongside Bobo as the dumbest of the dumb - and that is saying a lot...


----------



## alan1 (Nov 24, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Scientific opinion on climate change and global warming
> 
> SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE
> Environmental groups have warned of the contribution to climate change from human activities for decades. It has taken the scientific community many years to begin making definitive statements about the accuracy of these claims. *It should be noted that while the overwhelming majority of scientists now accept that human activities are a major cause of global warming, there is still a small number of scientists who disagree with these conclusions.
> ...


BWAHAHAHAHAHA
You cite an article that's data source came from the exact people that have just been shown to be lying.
Jeez you are an idiot.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 24, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Scientific opinion on climate change and global warming
> ...




These are tough times for the warmers...


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 24, 2009)

I can't believe they would lie and omit information for a multibillion dollar scam such as global warming!

These alarmists are really just out of their fucking mind


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 24, 2009)

Liberal Credo:

*If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. * -Albert Einstein


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 24, 2009)

To recap: 

I. As I've said in Cairo, as a science Climatology falls solidly between phrenology and palmistry

b. Gravity is not "Settled science" and I'm not being coy either look up the "Pioneer Anomaly" there is either something fundamentally amiss with our understanding of gravity or there are other forces at work in our Universe, so how the fuck can you have any confidence in this stupid ManMade Global Warming model?

iii. Obama is an asshole


----------



## alan1 (Nov 24, 2009)

Ame®icano;1748555 said:
			
		

> Liberal Credo:
> 
> *If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. * -Albert Einstein



You know what's really funny in this thread though?
It's the liberals harping on the "hacked" word instead of the facts of what actually happened.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 24, 2009)

Watch this... 4 parts.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI[/ame]


----------



## Annie (Nov 24, 2009)

Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

how many years?


> On 20 November 2009, emails and other documents, apparently originating from with the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
> If real, these emails contain some quite surprising and even disappointing insights into what has been happening within the climate change scientific establishment. Worryingly this same group of scientists are very influential in terms of economic and social policy formation around the subject of climate change.
> As these emails are already in the public domain, I think it is important that people are able to look through them and judge for themselves. Until I am told otherwise I have no reason to think the text found on this site is true or false. As of today, Saturday 21 November, there have been no statements that I have seen doubting the authenticity of these texts. It is here just as a curiosity!
> Ways to use this search:
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Nov 24, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> To recap:
> 
> I. As I've said in Cairo, as a science Climatology falls solidly between phrenology and palmistry
> 
> ...



Maybe they just need some more "peer review".

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FI0pDQOW4[/ame]


----------



## Annie (Nov 24, 2009)

Ame®icano;1748555 said:
			
		

> Liberal Credo:
> 
> *If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. * -Albert Einstein



Indeed. Seems where they were going. I'm not saying the opposition wouldn't have done likewise, but never had the chance. Too bad for the libs. Truth to tell, I don't think that the right would have pushed for science data to prove points. OTOH, didn't see the left doing, more so the organizations went down for falsehood. 

Costs? Unbelievable! Not just US, but Europe, Asia. The arguments were good, but without the truth? Undermined.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 24, 2009)

Ame®icano;1748555 said:
			
		

> Liberal Credo:
> 
> *If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. * -Albert Einstein


They did it with so-called "second hand" cigarette smoke and got away with peddling the bunk to the gullible, so they probably figgered to go for the _*BIG*_ whopper all at once.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 24, 2009)

Ravi said:


> No, you are now officially conspiracy theorists.


Would they be in the same category of the "Big OILLLL is funding the denier scientists" nutjobs?





			
				OldCrocks said:
			
		

> all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that global Warming is a fact, is a clear and present danger, and that we are the primary cause of it.


Ever hear of group think? Like the journalist who apologized and admitted he should have been more skeptical, these you have listed should apologize as well, for all they mostly did was parrot what they were spoonfed.

Sort of like you.


> I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.


Doesn't that really, truly say it all?





			
				Jay Hacknuck said:
			
		

> scientists they can buy off so all they are left with is conspiracy theories


"Bought off scientists" doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory to you Jay? Do you not see the towering irony in your own desperate, flailing posts? Have you NO shame?





			
				Diuretic said:
			
		

> More premature acclamation. Debate over? I think not. What we need are facts and what we need is an understanding of how science is done and what has been happening in this trail of emails which goes back, I believe, some years. We need to know the current state of knowledge about the claims concerning climate change. The debate is far from over.


The FIRST thing we need, is to STOP all laws current or proposed, which are based on this HOAX until we really and truly get the SCIENCE clean.

Agreed?


----------



## Annie (Nov 24, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > No, you are now officially conspiracy theorists.
> ...



All I can say, if after all the 'climate change' dissemination, they screwed all social and hard sciences. Unless the scientific communities comes forward, big problems ahead.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 24, 2009)

Annie said:


> All I can say, if after all the 'climate change' dissemination, they screwed all social and hard sciences. Unless the scientific communities comes forward, big problems ahead.


I just want to see all pending legislation and laws STOPPED immediately which are/were even _loosely_ based on this HOAX, until we get some actual science.

_Actual science_ which always begins with, "We do not know."


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 24, 2009)

Well, for sure, you sure as hell don't know anything.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 24, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, for sure, you sure as hell don't know anything.


I know enough to say "WHOA" to lawmakers, as you and everyone else should. Especially now.

Or, have you no desire to actually get whatever we do RIGHT? Shouldn't we KNOW with absolutely NO doubt whatsoever that climate laws we pass are based on incontrovertible, unbiased and unmolested SCIENCE?

If you have studied this latest controversy, and come away from that study with no doubts, you're simply dishonest with even yourself.


----------



## concept (Nov 24, 2009)

I want to make hot monkey love with this thread!


----------



## Oddball (Nov 24, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, for sure, you sure as hell don't know anything.


I know that someone rolled over on the globalcliamatecoolerwarmering "scientists" you so worship...Who have been, among other things, _*FAKING EVIDENCE*_.

And theirs aren't the only dirty hands, because scads of other "scientists", who have been the oh-so vaunted "peers" that you also worship, have signed off on the veracity of that bogus data.

If these people had that feared and loathed (R) next to their names (like, saaaaaay, Richard Nixon) you be pissing yourself.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 24, 2009)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well, for sure, you sure as hell don't know anything.
> ...


Obama himself said it, and look how prophetic it is now:

"What you see in FDR that I hope my team can emulate is, *not always getting it right, but projecting a sense of confidence*."

A confidence game. Where the con man dupes the Marks on a massive scale. That's what Goebbels Warming is, in a nutshell.

And Marks like the press, politicians, OldCrocks, chris, Jay Cumsuck and their ilk don't care if we get it right, only that their side "wins."


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 24, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




Sadly that is very true...


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 25, 2009)

Ringel05 said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



I admit I'm somewhat trusting of science and scientists.  I have to say I trust them more than I trust the spokespeople for polluting companies or scientists who have been put on the payroll of the aforesaid companies.  Funnily enough I've just been reading a few bits and pieces from Paul Feyerabend, on resisting science.  I haven't finished the articles yet but I have to say he presents a really interesting way of looking at science.

But scientists like every other human, have their weaknesses and some might have a weakness for money and some may have a weakness for fame.  I always loved that story about Watson and Crick in a pub in England when they sort of intuitively came up with the double helix theory (after a few pints).  But then on the sidelines there's the story about Rosalind Franklin.  So yes, there can be all kinds of problems there, as I said, they're only human.

However I'm not willing to make the statement that it's all fiction about climate change, not at all.  I want to see a useful and informative debate on the facts as we know them and anything we can reasonably extrapolate from them.  What I find obnoxious is the ideological battle across the divide.  That's the problem.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 25, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > No, you are now officially conspiracy theorists.
> ...



I don't know how many laws have been proposed in various places.  I do know here that there's a huge blue about it and the federal governments Emissions Trading Scheme.  I'm not going to take on anyone else's domestic legal situation.

But I do see this as a bit of luck.  For too long the debate has been conducted on, can I say, two levels, maybe more but I can only think of two.  First there's the scientific debate.  Occasionally us laypersons get to see a bit of it, usually when someone's pissing out of the tent, but then they go back to furiously arguing with each other in terms that most of us wouldn't understand.  What's needed there is a few umpires and a video replay.  The second level is the ideological level which is where many of us are at.  We take positions based on our political views and yell at one another and call each other Sceptics or Denialists or variants.  It's the equivalent of intra-tribal warfare.  

I don't see the debates being any clearer soon, I just hope to hell that it gets sorted out before too long.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 25, 2009)

Ame®icano;1748555 said:
			
		

> Liberal Credo:
> 
> *If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. * -Albert Einstein


Except in this thread, it is the "conservatives" doing just that.


----------



## Annie (Nov 25, 2009)

It's the code:

Pajamas Media » Climategate Computer Codes Are the Real Story



> Climategate Computer Codes Are the Real Story
> Posted By Charlie Martin On November 24, 2009 @ 4:09 pm In . Column1 02, . Positioning, Computers, Environment, Politics, Science, Science & Technology, US News | 38 Comments
> 
> So far, most of the Climategate attention has been on the emails in the data dump of  November 19 (see here [1], here [2], and here [3]), but the emails are only about 5 percent of the total. What does examining the other 95 percent tell us?
> ...



Actually seems that others start feeling sorry for poor, overworked Harry:

Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails - Taking Liberties - CBS News

Yeah, CBS believe it or not!



> ...In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named "Harry" -- possibly the CRU's Ian "Harry" Harris -- was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added:
> I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.
> 
> I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!
> ...


----------



## Annie (Nov 25, 2009)

Dude said:


> Ame®icano;1748555 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So true.


----------



## Annie (Nov 25, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > No, you are now officially conspiracy theorists.
> ...



It's possible that there might be some looking at the costs to the public:

Instapundit » Blog Archive » CLIMATEGATE: If these were internal Exxon-Mobil e-mails, the trial lawyers would be racing out th&#8230;


----------



## Annie (Nov 25, 2009)

Knew this was coming:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## Ravi (Nov 25, 2009)

Annie said:


> Knew this was coming:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded


Yep, because even debunked rightwingnut claims sound real if they are repeated often enough.


----------



## Annie (Nov 25, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Knew this was coming:
> ...




Oh, you found the story debunked? Where's that link?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 25, 2009)

Read the thread.


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

Annie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



in the netherworld of her of her wild imaginings


----------



## Annie (Nov 25, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Read the thread.



Your doing an imitation of your perceptions of the party of 'No!' doesn't constitute a link.


----------



## concept (Nov 25, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Diuretic said:
> ...



I agree but it is hard to have an honest debate when one side is basing their arguement on made up facts.


----------



## concept (Nov 25, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Ame®icano;1748555 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You know, a little honesty from you libs would go a long way.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Knew this was coming:
> ...



Get you head out of the Kool Aid Can, Moonbat.

Manmade Global Warming is all done.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

If Repub is the Party of No then Dems are the Party of Fingers in their ears going "nyah nyah nyah nyah I can't hear youuuuuuuuuuu"

Sock puppets and morons the whole lot of them


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

We demand the Unconditional Surrender of these lying Climatic Jihadists!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

I've peer reviewed this thread and the ManMade Global Warming people are still morons

Can I get an "Amen"?


----------



## NO!bama08 (Nov 25, 2009)

How long will it take Al Gore to jump from the Global Warming bandwagon to the "Next Ice Age" bandwagon? The sky is freezing!  The sky is freezing!  Awk!  Awk!   idiot.


----------



## Annie (Nov 25, 2009)

Slowly it's shifting into MSM:

The Real Problem With the Climate Science Emails - The Atlantic Business Channel



> Nov 25 2009, 11:00 am by Megan McArdle
> The Real Problem With the Climate Science Emails
> With Obama heading to Copenhagen, where he's expected to pledge some pretty big cuts in US carbon emissions, the ClimateGate story is an economic story as well as a political one.  I said before that I don't think the emails refuted the notion that AGW is real, and happening.  I still don't--the fact is, everything we know about carbon dioxide indicates that it has a greenhouse effect, because it is more efficient at passing sunlight through to the earth, than at allowing that energy to reradiate back into space as heat.
> 
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Nov 25, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> I don't know how many laws have been proposed in various places.  I do know here that there's a huge blue about it and the federal governments Emissions Trading Scheme.  I'm not going to take on anyone else's domestic legal situation.
> 
> But I do see this as a bit of luck.  For too long the debate has been conducted on, can I say, two levels, maybe more but I can only think of two.  First there's the scientific debate.  Occasionally us laypersons get to see a bit of it, usually when someone's pissing out of the tent, but then they go back to furiously arguing with each other in terms that most of us wouldn't understand.  What's needed there is a few umpires and a video replay.  The second level is the ideological level which is where many of us are at.  We take positions based on our political views and yell at one another and call each other Sceptics or Denialists or variants.  It's the equivalent of intra-tribal warfare.
> 
> I don't see the debates being any clearer soon, I just hope to hell that it gets sorted out before too long.


Cap-n-Tax has been SOP across a lot of Europe for awhile now.

Personally, my position on the matter is based upon reason, not necessarily politics. Largely on the bases that the "science" isn't reproducible on demand and the semantics of the warmists are deliberately deceptive.


----------



## Annie (Nov 25, 2009)

Bumping this closer to the Atlantic post. 



Annie said:


> It's the code:
> 
> Pajamas Media » Climategate Computer Codes Are the Real Story
> 
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

They'll drop the Great Climatic Googly Moogly and move onto somethign else as if none of this ever happened


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 25, 2009)

Yes, the code information - the foundation for the model projections, tabulated temperature records, etc., is getting worked over big time now.  This will take a bit of time as the information is terribly (intentionally) complex and at times, contradictory.

It is this biased code manipulation that will be the real nail in the coffin of AGW.

This manipulation has been ongoing for years, and has infected every level of the global warming science and resulting debate.  The science became utterly political with an overt connection to certain economic interests.

The mainstream media is dragging its feet even more than anticipated, but the truth is winning out...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

SCOTUS says that CO2 is still deadly so many they'll try to control how people breathe


----------



## Oddball (Nov 25, 2009)

And now, a nice musical interlude:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk[/ame]


----------



## Annie (Nov 25, 2009)

Dude said:


> And now, a nice musical interlude:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk



See #319. ;}


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 25, 2009)

Dude said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know how many laws have been proposed in various places.  I do know here that there's a huge blue about it and the federal governments Emissions Trading Scheme.  I'm not going to take on anyone else's domestic legal situation.
> ...


Right now all the talk in international climate circles is the US's "carbon debt" which is, MONEY we "owe" to underdeveloped countries for all our years of CO2 emissions..... Essentially, redistribution of wealth on a global scale.

Which is where this was all going from the beginning, all the way back when it was global cooling and the "new ice age" we were supposed to be afraid of.

They are LYING and this is and has been the motive. The hidden agenda that they no longer feel they have to hide. And the environment? The convenient emotional hook used to reel in the marks, the little fishies.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 25, 2009)

Annie said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > And now, a nice musical interlude:
> ...


Yeah, yeah, yeah....How did you get Minnesnowta stuff before me this time?


----------



## Annie (Nov 25, 2009)

Dude said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



  That video cracked me up!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

LMSM is completely dark on this.

Amazing


----------



## Ravi (Nov 25, 2009)

Better sell your stock in alternative energy!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

Why does the Left Hate Science?


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 25, 2009)

they don't hate science...they just hate science that contradicts what they say


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 25, 2009)

I assume Starr will be the special investigator for Warmergate?


----------



## JimH52 (Nov 25, 2009)

So I just read about this in the NYT.  So, FOX is not alone in publishing this.  The e-mails do not prove any type of cover up, as far as I have read.  If there is something there, please show me.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 25, 2009)

> _*
> " [We] will keep them (the skeptics) out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"*_



~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center.

Yeah....No cover-up to see here!


----------



## Ravi (Nov 25, 2009)

heh...out of context quotes.

Classic.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

Here's  a funny thought, there's as much science behind the idea that the Earth is 6,000 than there is for ManMade Global Warming


----------



## Oddball (Nov 25, 2009)

Ravi said:


> heh...out of context quotes.
> 
> Classic.


You wouldn't know the context if it broke your arm.


----------



## The T (Nov 25, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Diuretic said:
> ...


 
*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> So I just read about this in the NYT.  So, FOX is not alone in publishing this.  The e-mails do not prove any type of cover up, as far as I have read.  If there is something there, please show me.




This might explain why you can't see it


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

There's still no doubt that we evolved from monkeys because some random gamma ray blew apart a cell and mutated it allowing us to post on the Internet, amiright?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 25, 2009)

The dog ate the great atmospheric googly-moogly.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

The Left loves science...that supports their Great Climatic Googly Moogly position. 

All others need not apply


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

If it's getting cooler even with all this CO2, we might have to pump more CO2 into the air to keep from freezing.  The natural state of the Earth over the past 200,000 years has been MUCH colder than now. It's only the past 18,000 years that are an anomaly.

Leave your cars running all night long.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 25, 2009)

There's a lot of differing data [about global warming], but as far as I can gather, over the last hundred years the temperature on this planet has gone up 1.8 degrees. Am I the only one who finds that amazingly stable? I could go back to my hotel room tonight and futz with the thermostat for three to four hours. I could not detect that difference, besides I've always been a little chilly"

Dennis Miller

Classic


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

The rumor is that the Scientific data had the word "Fed" scribbled on its chest....Libs? Yoohoo, where'd ya go?

I hear that Sarah Palin might make a statement about this....Libs?

Booooooosh!  He lies!  He stole the Precious Florida Election!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

Carbon Credits 4 Sale -- Cheep!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

I think, therefore I warm the planet


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 25, 2009)

Ian Plimer fires off on the climategate subject...

___

*Climategate: Alarmism Is Underpinned by Fraud* 

In the geological past, there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six ice ages, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was higher than at present. It is clear that the colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas called carbon dioxide did not drive past climates. Carbon dioxide is plant food, not a pollutant.

...In the 600-year long Roman Warming, *it was 4ºC warmer than now*. Sea level did not rise and ice sheets did not disappear. The Dark Ages followed, and starvation, disease, and depopulation occurred. The Medieval Warming followed the Dark Ages, and for 400 years *it was 5ºC warmer.* Sea level did not rise and the ice sheets remained. The Medieval Warming was followed by the Little Ice Age, which finished in 1850. It is absolutely no surprise that temperature increased after a cold period.

Unless I have missed something, I am not aware of heavy industry, coal-fired power stations, or SUVs in the 1,000 years of Roman and Medieval Warmings. These natural warmings are a dreadful nuisance for climate alarmists because they suggest that the warming since 1850 may be natural and may not be related to carbon dioxide emissions.

...There was warming from 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1976 to 1998, with intervening periods of cooling. The only time when temperature rise paralleled carbon dioxide emissions was 1976-1998. The other warmings and coolings in the last 150 years were unrelated to carbon dioxide emissions.

*Something is seriously wrong*. To argue that humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics. This is exactly what has been done.

*The answer to this enigma was revealed last week. It is fraud.*

...Data were manipulated to show that the Medieval Warming didn&#8217;t occur, and that we are not in a period of cooling. Furthermore, the warming of the 20th century was artificially inflated.

This behavior is that of criminals and all the data from the UK Hadley Centre and the US GISS must now be rejected. These crooks perpetrated these crimes at the expense of the British and U.S. taxpayers.

The same crooks control the IPCC and the fraudulent data in IPCC reports. The same crooks meet in Copenhagen next week and want 0.7% of the Western world&#8217;s GDP to pass through an unelected UN government, and then on to sticky fingers in the developing world.

*You should be angry. Very angry.*


Full article here:


Pajamas Media » Climategate: Alarmism Is Underpinned by Fraud (PJM Exclusive)


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

ManMade Global Warming may be a lie, but we know Health Care Reform will save us Billions!


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 25, 2009)

Watch all three...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnF7ilVzeo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnF7ilVzeo[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

Libruls are fucking lairs, never saw that coming.


----------



## JimH52 (Nov 25, 2009)

Dude said:


> > _*
> > " [We] will keep them (the skeptics) out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"*_
> 
> 
> ...



That's it?  You've got to have something else.  If Fat Boy Rush ain't jumping all over this, something does not line up...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > > _*
> ...



LOL

That's it?  The whole MMGW Industry has been busted as a bigger fraud than Bernie Madoff and that's all you got?


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 25, 2009)

> Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
> Once Tim&#8217;s got a diagram here we&#8217;ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I&#8217;ve just completed Mike&#8217;s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith&#8217;s to hide the decline. Mike&#8217;s series got the annual land and marine values while theother two got April-Sept for NH land N of
> 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
> 
> ...



Anyone has any idea what words &#8220;hide the decline&#8221; means?



> Keith,
> 
> Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I&#8217;ll send it to you.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ravi (Nov 25, 2009)

Ame®icano;1751565 said:
			
		

> Anyone has any idea what words hide the decline means?


Yes, it's been posted on this thread several times. But I understand your reluctance to actually think beyond the drooling, birther mindset.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 25, 2009)

IOW, you're sticking with the lame-assed "out of context" defense.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 25, 2009)

"Gina dreams of running away... She cries in the night - Tommy whispers, 'baby it's okay.... It's ooooh-kay...'

We gotta hold on, to what we got. It doesn't make a difference if we're right or not.
We got Al Gore, and that's alot.... 
For the planet -- We'll give it a shot!

You live for the fight when that's all that you got!
Woahhhhh, we're halfway there (woah-OHHH, Livin' in dispair) take my hand, we'll make it I swear.... (woah-OHHH, Livin' in dispair)"


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2009)

*Well, now that the scientists have had time to start answering the criminal hack of their private e-mails, we will see the e-mails in context.

One thing that this has acheived, other than having braindead denialists having little and big orgasms all over themselves, is to unite the scientific community on this attack on their integrity.*

Let&#8217;s look at one of the illegally hacked emails in more detail &#8212; the one by NCAR&#8217;s Kevin Trenberth on &#8220;where the heck is global warming?&#8221; « Climate Progress

The answer to the question where the heck is global warming? is precisely where you would expect, as we will see. 

Wired has done some excellent reporting on one of the supposed start-dumping-your-clean-energy-stocks e-mails  the one by Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado:

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we cant. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

..........................................................................

But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point hes making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article  An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf)  actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.

It says we dont have an observing system adequate to track it, but there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures  including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators  that global warming is continuing, he says.

Or, as Gavin Schmidt explains deep in the comments section of RealClimate, when asked Is Dr Trenberth correct in his claim that we cant explain why the planet hasnt been warming as expected?

[Response: It is the level of explanation that is the issue. The zero-th order explanation is that 'natural variation' and possible structural issues in the surface data sets are plenty large enough. But it would be good to know exactly what form that natural variation has taken and why exactly it has the impact on the global mean temperatures it has. It is this second-order explanation that Trenberth is discussing. - gavin]

I would urge people to read Trenberths article, which asks:

The global mean temperature in 2008 was the lowest since about 2000 (Fig. 1). Given that there is continual heating of the planet, referred to as radiative forcing, by accelerating increases of carbon dioxide (Fig. 1) and other greenhouses due to human activities, why isnt the temperature continuing to go up? The stock answer is that natural variability plays a key role1 and there was a major La Niña event early in 2008 that led to the month of January having the lowest anomaly in global temperature since 2000. While this is true, it is an incomplete explanation. In particular, what are the physical processes? From an energy standpoint, there should be an explanation that accounts for where the radiative forcing has gone. Was it compensated for temporarily by changes in clouds or aerosols, or other changes in atmospheric circulation that allowed more radiation to escape to space? Was it because a lot of heat went into melting Arctic sea ice or parts of Greenland and Antarctica, and other glaciers? Was it because the heat was buried in the ocean and sequestered, perhaps well below the surface? Was it because the La Niña led to a change in tropical ocean currents and rearranged the configuration of ocean heat? Perhaps all of these things are going on? But surely we have an adequate system to track whether this is the case or not, dont we?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 25, 2009)

"Illegally hacked e-mails" is nothing more than a talking point by a bunch of hacks who got caught with the goods. No surprise, though, coming from an offshoot of the far-leftist Center for American Progress.

Getting past the ad hom, the rationalizing away of one e-mail or thread hardly puts a dent in the overwhelming stack of evidence that the CRU has been gaming the statistics, burying or destroying others, evading FOIA and blackballing skeptics.

Pretty flaccid effort, old man. But I gotta give you credit for being the only one who has put even half of an effort into it.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 25, 2009)

Old Crocks said:


> *Well, now that the scientists have had time to start answering the criminal hack of their private e-mails, we will see the e-mails in context.*


You mean, "Now that they have had time to come up with a spin that their sycophant idiots out there will believe and regurgitate..."

"We will accentuate the "hacking" part even though we know it's not true. Since when did we care about truth anyway? Because the unwashed hordes out there hate "hackers" far more than they hate scientists who lie, pull shit out of their asses, and fudge numbers. (pardon the pun)

So we will ride this "hacker" deal because we really want people talking about these criminals that don't exist, rather than having them actually look at and read the emails."


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 25, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Ame®icano;1751565 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First, you run around screaming that the sky is falling, but calling us the conspiracy nuts. That was a good one. Now, even better one is, we're talking about "warming" and you still talking about birthers. There are, you know... drugs for your condition.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> *Well, now that the scientists have had time to start answering the criminal hack of their private e-mails, we will see the e-mails in context.
> 
> One thing that this has acheived, other than having braindead denialists having little and big orgasms all over themselves, is to unite the scientific community on this attack on their integrity.*
> 
> ...



Why do Libruls Hate Science?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2009)

"The fact is that we can&#8217;t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can&#8217;t."

So, we'll just make shit up.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 25, 2009)

Dude said:


> "Illegally hacked e-mails" is nothing more than a talking point by a bunch of hacks who got caught with the goods. No surprise, though, coming from an offshoot of the far-leftist Center for American Progress.
> 
> Getting past the ad hom, the rationalizing away of one e-mail or thread hardly puts a dent in the overwhelming stack of evidence that the CRU has been gaming the statistics, burying or destroying others, evading FOIA and blackballing skeptics.
> 
> Pretty flaccid effort, old man. But I gotta give you credit for being the only one who has put even half of an effort into it.



Would they ever let those emails in the open if they were asked for them, legally?


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 25, 2009)

Article from May 2009. Nobody paid any attention to it then... 

What if global-warming fears are overblown?


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 25, 2009)

Ame®icano;1752329 said:
			
		

> Article from May 2009. Nobody paid any attention to it then...
> 
> What if global-warming fears are overblown?




Such articles/opinions have been numerous and growing in numbers in more recent years - but they are actively ignored/trampled down/dismissed by the mainstream media and on-the-dole science community.

The very same process is happening now regarding these leaked emails.

With trillions of dollars at stake, there will be a collective and very aggressive push to just "forget" any of those emails existed...


----------



## concept (Nov 25, 2009)

WOW....

TBR.cc: BREAKING: NZâs NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking
*BREAKING: NZs NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking*


> The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there.
> 
> The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre.



Not looking good for the cult..  

I am not surprised one bit. And the apologists will continue to bleat away.


----------



## concept (Nov 26, 2009)

Peer reviewed, my ass.


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

but this would be a global conspiracy that and would of required a real control of media and the free dissemination of information and everyone knows that could never happen...so we can  rest assured that there is no such plan to implode the economy...or lead us into wars of conquest under false pretenses


----------



## concept (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> but this would be a global conspiracy that and would of required a real control of media and the free dissemination of information and everyone knows that could never happen...and we can  rest assured that there is no such plan to implode the economy...or lead us into wars of conquest under false pretenses



Not bad, but you lose the crowd when you hit the whole conquest schtick.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 26, 2009)

concept said:


> Peer reviewed, my ass.


Wrong-o.

Like I just said in another thread, Galileo failed "peer review" too.


----------



## concept (Nov 26, 2009)

Dude said:


> concept said:
> 
> 
> > Peer reviewed, my ass.
> ...



What do you mean?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 26, 2009)

You have to tell the peers what they believe, irregardless of the verifiable facts, in order to get the good review on your stats.

Otherwise, you're a "heretic".


----------



## Annie (Nov 26, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Ame®icano;1752329 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now we know why it was so difficult, if not impossible to find such that were 'peer-reviewed' as 'top scientists' well funded by UK, US governments through grants, were intimidating the editorial selections at journals that would do so. Then through 'corrupted online communities' where it seems some of these scientists were administrators, they chose what 'open debate' would be allowed. 

It's the 'Barry Madoff' of the science world. There have already been billions of dollars spent in response to this faked data, now Obama and others are going to Copenhagen to push for drastic reductions, without really sufficient data to back it up. 

Does this 'settle' anything? No. It does indicate that the information is just not there to make massive changes until there is data that fits the models or models revised that reflect the data.


----------



## JW Frogen (Nov 26, 2009)

Dude said:


> Like I just said in another thread, Galileo failed "peer review" too.



When ever I make love to a woman and then she asks "do you love me?" and I say "no" and she gets angry and says "you are an asshole"; I always use the Galileo reply, "still, it moves."


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 26, 2009)

Libruls love science like Dracula loves the sunrise


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 26, 2009)

> Many of our readers will no doubt be aware of the long-standing dispute between Steve McIntyre and members of the climate science community whose data McIntyre is keen to get hold of.
> 
> For those of you less familiar with the story, here&#8217;s some background. *McIntyre, who runs the Climate Audit blog, is best known for questioning the validity of the statistical analyses used to create the &#8216;hockey stick&#8217; graph.* The &#8216;hockey stick&#8217; is the graph that illustrates the past 1000 years of climate based on palaeo proxy data and was published by Penn state climatologist Michael Mann and co-authors in Nature back in 1998.



McIntyre versus Jones: climate data row escalates 



> *We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?* - Phil Jones, developer of the UN's IPCC temperature history, 2005



Dangerous Deception?



> The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.



We've lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests


----------



## The T (Nov 26, 2009)

Dude said:


> You have to tell the peers what they believe, irregardless of the verifiable facts, in order to get the good review on your stats.
> 
> Otherwise, you're a "heretic".


 ...And they must _destroy_ you...


----------



## The T (Nov 26, 2009)

Dude said:


> concept said:
> 
> 
> > Peer reviewed, my ass.
> ...


 
Yep. Back then it was an esteemed club called "_The FLAT EARTHERS" _


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 26, 2009)

Ame®icano;1752803 said:
			
		

> > Many of our readers will no doubt be aware of the long-standing dispute between Steve McIntyre and members of the climate science community whose data McIntyre is keen to get hold of.
> >
> > For those of you less familiar with the story, heres some background. *McIntyre, who runs the Climate Audit blog, is best known for questioning the validity of the statistical analyses used to create the hockey stick graph.* The hockey stick is the graph that illustrates the past 1000 years of climate based on palaeo proxy data and was published by Penn state climatologist Michael Mann and co-authors in Nature back in 1998.
> 
> ...



The Dog Ate my Gullible Warming Homework.

Yeah, that's real science


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> but this would be a global conspiracy that and would of required a real control of media and the free dissemination of information and everyone knows that could never happen...so we can  rest assured that there is no such plan to implode the economy...or lead us into wars of conquest under false pretenses


It's not a conspiracy, it's group think. For the most part you have only a dozen or so bad actors, the rest are just lemmings, or are dismissed as heretics.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 26, 2009)

Have Libruls denounced their false Global Warming Religion?


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 26, 2009)

Annie said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1752329 said:
> ...




And the President of the World - Obama, is working in tandem with the global warming industrial machine.

His playbook is to communicate continual crisis - the "crisis" in healthcare, and the "crisis" in global warming.  These fabricated crisis need far reaching and drastic action by the federal government - ie, great expansion of power, and further centralizing of the governmental order.

The most pressing crisis in America at this time is the Obama White House and the Democrat controlled Congress...


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > but this would be a global conspiracy that and would of required a real control of media and the free dissemination of information and everyone knows that could never happen...so we can  rest assured that there is no such plan to implode the economy...or lead us into wars of conquest under false pretenses
> ...



Lemming is what you are, old boy. Just mindlessly repeating talking points and never, never actually researching the data.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 26, 2009)

See: Irony.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2009)

Ame®icano;1752803 said:
			
		

> > Many of our readers will no doubt be aware of the long-standing dispute between Steve McIntyre and members of the climate science community whose data McIntyre is keen to get hold of.
> >
> > For those of you less familiar with the story, heres some background. *McIntyre, who runs the Climate Audit blog, is best known for questioning the validity of the statistical analyses used to create the hockey stick graph.* The hockey stick is the graph that illustrates the past 1000 years of climate based on palaeo proxy data and was published by Penn state climatologist Michael Mann and co-authors in Nature back in 1998.
> 
> ...


*Yes, McIntyre, in spite of numerous studies that have confirmed the hockey stick graph is still making a ass of himself. Here is a new study from the November issue of the Scientific American. If this fellow can develop independent data, why can't McIntyre? Could it be because the people he is whoring his credentials too are not interested in real answers, only in creating doubt.*

Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph: Scientific American

The hockey stick graph has been both a linchpin and target in the climate change debate. As a plot of average Northern Hemisphere temperature from two millennia ago to the present, it stays relatively flat until the 20th century, when it rises up sharply, like the blade of an upturned hockey stick. Warming skeptics have long decried how the temperatures were inferred, but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts.

The hockey stick came to life in 1998 thanks to the work of Michael Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University, and his colleagues (and many other climate scientists who subsequently refined the graph). Reconstructing historical temperatures is difficult: investigators must combine information from tree rings, coral drilling, pinecones, ice cores and other natural records and then convert them to temperatures at specific times and places in the past. Such proxies for temperature can be sparse or incomplete, both geographically and through time. Manns method used the overlap, where it exists, of recent proxy data and instrument data (such as from thermometers) to estimate relations between them. It calculates earlier temperatures using a mathematical extrapolation technique [see Behind the Hockey Stick, by David Appell, Insights; Scientific American, March 2005].


----------



## Oddball (Nov 26, 2009)

> * Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)



- Bishop Hill blog - Climate cuttings*33

Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2009)

I see. The Scientific American, Journal of Geophysical Research, ect. are all part of conspiracy to keep scientists from publishing their papers. 

Time for you to don your tin hat and get back under the bed.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 26, 2009)

Good God, are you fucking stupid.



> *Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
> 
> *Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. *Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter.* Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
> 
> * Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]



- Bishop Hill blog - Climate cuttings*33


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 26, 2009)

Yes, we have research and no, you can't see it.

Trust us, you're responsible for the recent cooling trend in the Great Climatic Googly Moogly.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 26, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hftsk4gWqI&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 26, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


I've actually done more research and studied more data than you can ever know, being a close examiner of this shit since 1990 at least.

But, of course that doesn't matter to you. When the large majority is crying chicken little on AGW, those are the lemmings. Actual independent thinkers such as myself are going, 'hey, wait just a minute. There's more holes in this theory than a sieve."

For the better part of a decade I was one of the very few voices in the woods......

The irony of your post is almost too strong to be real. Are you purposely trying to make a mockery of yourself?


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > but this would be a global conspiracy that and would of required a real control of media and the free dissemination of information and everyone knows that could never happen...so we can  rest assured that there is no such plan to implode the economy...or lead us into wars of conquest under false pretenses
> ...



no it is absolutely a conspiracy if they knowingly falsify and control the dissemination of information to further an agenda..most sophisticated conspiracies contain a few bad actors and a group of well meaning dupes and yes men


----------



## asaratis (Nov 26, 2009)

concept said:


> lol...
> This is quite amazing.
> 
> It's going to take a while before all of this comes out.
> ...


This will have repercusions for decades. 



Dude said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > No offense, but you're peeing your pants with glee over a few *perhaps* unethical scientists and making it sound like their is a world wide conspiracy on climate science.
> ...


Similar to the flawed intelligence that drove us to Iraq.



Dude said:


> Good God, are you fucking stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He honestly can't answer that question.  I can.  Yes, he is fucking stupid.


----------



## Annie (Nov 27, 2009)

How to Forge a Consensus - WSJ.com



> OPINION EUROPE
> NOVEMBER 26, 2009, 8:02 P.M. ET
> How to Forge a Consensus
> The impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start.
> ...



The last paragraph at the very least, should give all pause.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Conspiracies by definition have to be "small" so I think we are in agreement and I stand corrected. The well-meaning dupes and the yes men are the group think practitioners for the most part, with probably a good percentage of them willingly dishonest, such as we see with warmers here on USMB.

The warmers and the birthers, birds of essentially the same feather.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 27, 2009)

Inhofe Radio Interview Monday, November 23, 2009

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH6_hmEgfCs"]Climategate[/ame]

*November 15, 2005 *Inhofe Senate Floor Speech



> I am a U.S. Senator, and a former mayor and businessman. I am not a scientist. But I do understand politics. And the more I have delved into the issue, the more convinced I have become that science is being co-opted by those who care more about peddling fear of gloom and doom to further their own, broader agendas than they do about scientific integrity.
> 
> I am committed to shining a light on their activities. Global warming alarmists will undoubtedly continue to accuse me of attacking the science of global warming &#8211; that is part of their game. But nothing could be further from the truth. I support and defend credible, objective science by exposing the corrupting influences that would subvert it for political purposes. Good policy must be based on good science, and that requires science be free of bias, whatever its conclusions.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 27, 2009)

Reminder...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py6yay2c0Oo"]You don't know me...[/ame]


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 27, 2009)

a couple more pages down the line and what do we have? - nothing but the opinion of posters and media blowhards.

"I am a U.S. Senator, and a former mayor and businessman. I am not a scientist. But I do understand politics." - he sure does!..... LOL!

well that does it I'm convinced the whole thing is a conspiracy!


----------



## Oddball (Nov 27, 2009)

Speaking of blowhards...


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 27, 2009)

when are we going to hear from the scientists who are supposedly all part of this conspiracy? - it would be interesting to hear what was in it for them other than risking their reputations!


----------



## concept (Nov 27, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> when are we going to hear from the scientists who are supposedly all part of this conspiracy? - it would be interesting to hear what was in it for them other than risking their reputations!



lol yeah they will come clean any minute now.  


Fuck are you ever a dupe.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 27, 2009)

it's a shame for you Dud that the majority of American public are convinced that there is such a thing as man-made climate change and the ones in the small minorty that are left over I would compare to the type of partisan hack that would vote for a G.Bush third term.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 27, 2009)

concept said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > when are we going to hear from the scientists who are supposedly all part of this conspiracy? - it would be interesting to hear what was in it for them other than risking their reputations!
> ...



are you saying there is no proof of a mass conspiracy? - I hope not ....why that would expose you and the rest of the blowjobs on this thread as the bunch of frauds you are.


----------



## Annie (Nov 27, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> it's a shame for you Dud that the majority of American public are convinced that there is such a thing as man-made climate change and the ones in the small minorty that are left over I would compare to the type of partisan hack that would vote for a G.Bush third term.



As one of your scientific buds might agree, "Never underestimate the ability to fool the ijits." See they, you, and Obama hold the American public in contempt, but you knew that.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 27, 2009)

Annie said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > it's a shame for you Dud that the majority of American public are convinced that there is such a thing as man-made climate change and the ones in the small minorty that are left over I would compare to the type of partisan hack that would vote for a G.Bush third term.
> ...



sure....pull the earflaps on your tinfoil hat down and then you can just hear yourself talking.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 27, 2009)

*McCain and Obama Supporters Largely Agree on Approaches to Energy, Climate Change - World Public Opinion=*

*McCain and Obama Supporters Largely Agree on Approaches to Energy, Climate Change*


----------



## driveby (Nov 27, 2009)

Dude said:


> concept said:
> 
> 
> > Peer reviewed, my ass.
> ...



Sorry Dude, you're dead wrong on this whole topic and i have the graph that proves once and for all that global warming is real:


----------



## Oddball (Nov 27, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> *McCain and Obama Supporters Largely Agree on Approaches to Energy, Climate Change - World Public Opinion=*
> 
> *McCain and Obama Supporters Largely Agree on Approaches to Energy, Climate Change*


Like Juan McQuisling suddenly became credible to leftist wackaloons?!?!?

Oh, Priscilla!!


----------



## IanC (Nov 27, 2009)

Jay- do you think the people who are concerned about the fraudulent claims of AGW are proponents of increasing carbon emissions? there are lots of people who believe in a green lifestyle who don't want to unilaterally cripple the economy and put a huge debt on the backs of working people. there have been many great improvements in the last few decades and there are more to come but the business of carbon tax will surely degrade into a ripoff of regular people.


----------



## The T (Nov 27, 2009)

Dude said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > *McCain and Obama Supporters Largely Agree on Approaches to Energy, Climate Change - World Public Opinion=*
> ...


 
As if the _premise_ is that McCain is a _Conservative_ to start with?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 27, 2009)

*Hacked Climate Emails Called a "Smear Campaign"* Hacked climate emails called a smear campaign | Reuters

really?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 27, 2009)

ahhhh time to throw McCain under the bus...... that's what happens when you don't please the far rabid right-wingnuts.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 27, 2009)

IanC said:


> Jay- do you think the people who are concerned about the fraudulent claims of AGW are proponents of increasing carbon emissions? there are lots of people who believe in a green lifestyle who don't want to unilaterally cripple the economy and put a huge debt on the backs of working people. there have been many great improvements in the last few decades and there are more to come but the business of carbon tax will surely degrade into a ripoff of regular people.



are you a scientist that can break down the hacked e-mails and then prove that fradulent claims were made?


----------



## The T (Nov 27, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Jay- do you think the people who are concerned about the fraudulent claims of AGW are proponents of increasing carbon emissions? there are lots of people who believe in a green lifestyle who don't want to unilaterally cripple the economy and put a huge debt on the backs of working people. there have been many great improvements in the last few decades and there are more to come but the business of carbon tax will surely degrade into a ripoff of regular people.
> ...


 
Translation: _"You're too stupid to know what you're reading, and cannot comment on something I am still sore in thae ass about for getting caught for agreeing with the presented faux Science because I'm too afraid to admit I'm a Libtard and too easily led by the nose which makes me vapid and shallow as those that WROTE the E-Mails in order to have a cushy existence and bank account to match the vapidity..."_


----------



## Oddball (Nov 27, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> ahhhh time to throw McCain under the bus...... that's what happens when you don't please the far rabid right-wingnuts.


I've always detested McQueeg the politician...Ask anyone who knows me.


----------



## The T (Nov 27, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> ahhhh time to throw McCain under the bus...... that's what happens when you don't please the far rabid right-wingnuts.


 
What the fuck ever gave you the silly notion that Juan was a Conservative to begoin with? Juan laid down in front of the BUS on this issue to start with _on his own_ if your rhetoric proves true.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 27, 2009)

Retired climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball, on the scandal.

Note he says basically the same thing I've been saying for years (for those of you who've known me that long) about the much ballyhooed "peer review".

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a3QZRtUFtk&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 27, 2009)

Well, that is easy to figure. He is just as stupid as you are!  

Well, not really, but far better paid for saying stupid things.

Exxon-funded Canadian Climatologist says global warming NOT caused by humans [Archive] - LiveDaily Community

Richard TafoyaFeb 6th, 2007, 01:28 PM
Sourcewatch gives us a little more:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

Ball has been identified as a Canadian climate change sceptic (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_sceptic&action=edit) who is a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oil_industry)-backed organization, Friends of Science (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science). 

Ball is also a writer for Tech Central Station (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tech_Central_Station). 

The website of Friends of Science (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science) quotes Ball stating that "the Kyoto Protocol (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Kyoto_Protocol) is a political solution to a non-existent problem without scientific justification." [5] (Friends of Science) Ball has even made the outrageous argument that climate change (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change) and global warming (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming) would be good for us. "A warmer Canada would improve our lives in these and other ways too numerous to list. Global warming? Let's hope so," he wrote in June 2006. [6] (Warmer is better: Junk Science Week)

-------

Tech Central Station

Current & past funders include: 

AT&T (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=AT&T)
ExxonMobil (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ExxonMobil)
General Motors Corporation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=General_Motors_Corporation)
Intel Corporation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Intel)
McDonald's (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=McDonald's)
Microsoft (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Microsoft)
NASDAQ (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NASDAQ)
National Semiconductor (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Semiconductor&action=edit)
PhRMA (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=PhRMA)
Qualcomm (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Qualcomm&action=edit) In October 2006, two US Senators, Olympia Snowe (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Olympia_Snowe), (R-Maine), and Jay Rockefeller (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jay_Rockefeller), (D-W.Va.) wrote to ExxonMobil (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ExxonMobil)'s chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rex_Tillerson&action=edit), asking that it "end any further financial assistance" to groups "whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth." The Senators singled out TechCentralStation as one such group. They wrote that "we are convinced that ExxonMobil's long-standing support of a small cadre of global climate change skeptics, and those skeptics' access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy".


----------



## Oddball (Nov 27, 2009)

So, we're back to the stale old strategy of attacking the source, rather than the facts of the case, AKA:
*
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person)*. This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?"

Sorry, old fuck, that dog don't hunt.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 27, 2009)

While we're at it, in whose pocket is the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman,  who is in the process of suing Algore for fraud?

SermonAudio.com - Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud



And who bought off the founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, who says what we all know; that the environmental movement has been hijacked by a bunch of authoritarian loons with political agendas?

Founder Explains Why He Left Greenpeace | Sweetness & Light


----------



## chanel (Nov 28, 2009)

> Obama administration climate czar Carol Browner on Wednesday rejected claims that e-mails stolen from a British university show climate scientists trumped up global warming numbers,* saying she considers the science settled.*
> 
> "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real," said Ms. Browner, who President Obama has tapped as his chief of policy on global warming.
> 
> ...




http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/25/climate-czar-says-e-mails-dont-change-anything/
I guess this answers my question.  Now how much of our money will he commit?  One trillion?  Three trillion?  Eleventy gazillion?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 28, 2009)

Dude said:


> So, we're back to the stale old strategy of attacking the source, rather than the facts of the case, AKA:
> *
> Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person)*. This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?"
> 
> Sorry, old fuck, that dog don't hunt.



I see. I can't call a whore a whore if it is your whore


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 28, 2009)

chanel said:


> > Obama administration climate czar Carol Browner on Wednesday rejected claims that e-mails stolen from a British university show climate scientists trumped up global warming numbers,* saying she considers the science settled.*
> >
> > "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real," said Ms. Browner, who President Obama has tapped as his chief of policy on global warming.
> >
> ...



I see. Creating an energy infrastructure that would make this nation independent of foriegn energy resources for 3 trillion is so much less sane that spending that amount of a war based on lies? 

And then having the occupation of Iraq spiral into failure?

You Conservatives really are cards. If it benefits the citizens of this nation, it is bad. If it gets our sons and daughters killed in foriegn lands, and results in the deaths of tens of thousands of the citizens of those lands, it is good. 

Your morality is as bankrupt as your economic policies.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 28, 2009)

Dude said:


> While we're at it, in whose pocket is the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman,  who is in the process of suing Algore for fraud?
> 
> SermonAudio.com - Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud
> 
> ...



*How much longer are we going to have to wait for this lawsuit? Maybe like until eternity? Hell, that garbage would not even make the rank of a frivolous lawsuit. 

Another lying, blathering fruitcake.*

Jeremy Jacquot | John Coleman: Still Waiting for that Lawsuit

If Colemans on-air appearance is any indication of the strength of his legal argument, hell probably want to spend more time preparing anyway. For one thing, he claimed that average global temperatures had risen by maybe a tenth of a degree over the last century; strange then that the IPCC reported in 2007 that temperatures actually increased by an average of 0.74°C over the same period.

Colemans take on the hockey stick graph (a reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past millennium that shows a sharp rise in the last century) was equally laughable. Far from being disproven by science, as he asserted, its findings were in fact reaffirmed by a sprawling 2006 report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences. The authors drew on 1,200 overlapping proxy records, or data sets, including ice and sediment core contents and coral and tree growth trends, to derive historical temperature patterns for the past 2,000 years in both hemispheres. Their conclusion: Yes, Virginia, global warming is real.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 28, 2009)

Let's review: The Pioneer Anomaly show that gravity is not "Settled science" but we're absolutely sure that the cooked data of Climatology make Global Warming "Settled science"

LOL


----------



## mal (Nov 28, 2009)

Dude said:


> So, we're back to the stale old strategy of attacking the source, rather than the facts of the case, AKA:
> *
> Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person)*. This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?"
> 
> Sorry, old fuck, that dog don't hunt.



If you Link FOXNews, and the link is an AP story Posted @ FOXNews, those who don't like what the Story says, who Normally Quote the AP, will Dismiss it because it's FOXNews...

These are Inherently Dishonest People.



peace...


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 28, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> I see.


No, you _do not_ see. Willfully. That is the entire point.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 28, 2009)




----------



## The T (Nov 28, 2009)

Welcome To The _Machine..._


----------



## Oddball (Nov 28, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > So, we're back to the stale old strategy of attacking the source, rather than the facts of the case, AKA:
> ...



No, you can't see because you have blinders on.

In your totalitarian world, the accused isn't entitled to competent defense and expert counsel. 

No...Instead you get to be judge jury and executioner, based upon nothing more than your fantasy charges and fabricated "evidence", and the accused just has to sit there and take it.

Fucking fascist.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 28, 2009)

> *Climatologist slams RealClimate.org for 'erroneously communicating the reality of the how climate system is actually behaving' *
> 
> A UN scientist is declaring that his three fellow UN climate panel colleagues "should be barred from the IPCC process." In a November 26, 2009 message on his website, UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: "CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process."
> 
> ...



Climatologist slams RealClimate.org for 'erroneously communicating the reality of the how climate system is actually behaving' | Climate Depot


----------



## 2Parties (Nov 28, 2009)

Of course it was BS.  Even if their "facts" were true they couldn't give 2 shits about the New Zealand Blue Footed Woodpecker Penguin's habitat melting.   All they ever cared about was you worshiping them and their god (aka themselves).


----------



## Oddball (Nov 28, 2009)

That and affecting political policies around the world, without ever having to bother getting elected to anything.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 28, 2009)

Interesting blurb I just came across, while doing some related research:



> Comment: Tom Nelson [papertiger] Of course the emails are real. More then that, _*we know who the insider/mole is. Keith Briffa*_ (of the  CRU) _*leaked these emails.*_ How do I know? The author of the Yamal chronologies released the data dump through his Russian contacts, that's how I know. He was severely ill, maybe still is. Had himself a death bed conversion, and decided on a course of action to come clean circumventing...



SOURCE


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 28, 2009)

Dude said:


> Interesting blurb I just came across, while doing some related research:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Keith Briffa

Keith Briffa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His email address included at first link. One of us could ask him I suppose...


----------



## Oddball (Nov 29, 2009)

Check out the dweeb trying to sputter and spin his way out of answering direct questions, in the second half of this one:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHATItyOsdY[/ame]


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 29, 2009)

Christopher Booker comes out swinging...


Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation 

*Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker*. 

...The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. *Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). *

...Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history. 

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement. 

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, *as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case. *

...What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results. 

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods  not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work.* It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports. *


...Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age. 



Full article here:


Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph


----------



## The T (Nov 29, 2009)

Dude said:


> Check out the dweeb trying to sputter and spin his way out of answering direct questions, in the second half of this one:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHATItyOsdY


 

Notice the guy in the last part of that segment cites "POLLUTION", and "BUSH" in the same sentence...I guess he like Bush now, eh?

Stuart Varney PW3ND that jackass...


----------



## The T (Nov 29, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Christopher Booker comes out swinging...
> 
> 
> Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
> ...


 
Good Article. Their entire argument is screwed, and they know it. (I cannot REP YOU at this time unfortunately). Good find.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 29, 2009)

The T said:


> Stuart Varney PW3ND that jackass...


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 29, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> so hacked e-mails are proof a of a conspiracy? .....right! -  snore....next.





you dummy................

This week effectively and offically ends ANY talk of consensus on the matter of "man-made" global warming............that is unless youre a fcukking k00k............

Accordingly...........you're...............


----------



## The T (Nov 29, 2009)

*[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNbxYVa2VjA&NR=1"]Glenn Beck on "ClimateGate" Man-Made Global Warming Climate Scam-Actual Proven Conspiracy 11-23-09[/ame]*


----------



## concept (Nov 29, 2009)

Repository of links about Climategate.

Climategate « Watts Up With That?


----------



## concept (Nov 29, 2009)

Interactive map...  

Medieval Warm Period


----------



## The T (Nov 29, 2009)

concept said:


> Interactive map...
> 
> Medieval Warm Period


 
Good stuff. I am glad that someone posted this. I have oft asked what of the Science of the PAST global record? (Even before Man)? I guess that history was of no consequence?

Thanks for posting this...


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 29, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> The Heartland Institute does not fudge data, they create whole cloth lies. And dumb suckers like you swallow them.
> 
> So what you are claiming is that 95% of all the scientists in the world, from many differant nations and political systems are all in on a grand conspiracy. You and Eots.



"Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 


Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, *his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely  not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it. *
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history. 

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement. 

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case. 

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself. 
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is *the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws. *
*They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based. *
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least *Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence. *
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is  *what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction  to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.[/B] This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand. 

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played  to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU. 
What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results. 

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods  not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports. 
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph*


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 29, 2009)

Sorry, T, it looks like you posted this too.

But it isn't as pretty as mine.


----------



## The T (Nov 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Sorry, T, it looks like you posted this too.
> 
> But it isn't as pretty as mine.


 
Ain't nuthin' but a thang... 

Press on my friend...


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 29, 2009)

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

*The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals &#8212; stored on paper and magnetic tape &#8212; were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
*
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU&#8217;s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: &#8220;We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.&#8221;

lol...how convienent they just threw away the data that actually fucking mattered


----------



## Oddball (Nov 29, 2009)

Even small time bookies keep better records.


----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2009)

I love this right wing love fest over a small university in England that no one has ever heard of.

How desperate are you?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 29, 2009)

We've heard of the IPCC, Penn State, the Universities of Arizona and Colorado, NASA and NOAA....All of whom were circle jerking with the East Anglia CRU.

Next dopey comment?


----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2009)

Dude said:


> We've heard of the IPCC, Penn State, the Universities of Arizona and Colorado, NASA and NOAA....All of whom were circle jerking with the East Anglia CRU.
> 
> Next dopey comment?



You really have nothing.

The poles are melting, the glaciers are melting, the temps are increasing, and all you have are some hacked emails from a small university in England.

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,haaaa!!!!!!!!

How pathetic!


----------



## Oddball (Nov 29, 2009)

What we have are the goods on people who were cooking the books, evading disclosure and attempting to destroy the careers of anyone who questioned them.

And all you have is the same worn out dreck that you post every day, with no independently verified evidence to back you up.

Too bad, asshelmet, your goofy hoax is going the way of Piltdown man.


----------



## concept (Nov 29, 2009)

Chris said:


> I love this right wing love fest over a small university in England that no one has ever heard of.
> 
> How desperate are you?



lol... have you any idea how desperate you sound?


----------



## concept (Nov 29, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > We've heard of the IPCC, Penn State, the Universities of Arizona and Colorado, NASA and NOAA....All of whom were circle jerking with the East Anglia CRU.
> ...



Translation: It has been summertime on Earth for the last few months so dupes like chris here are shocked to learn that yes, ice melts in the summer. 





What a retard.


----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2009)

Dude said:


> What we have are the goods on people who were cooking the books, evading disclosure and attempting to destroy the careers of anyone who questioned them.
> 
> And all you have is the same worn out dreck that you post every day, with no independently verified evidence to back you up.
> 
> Too bad, asshelmet, your goofy hoax is going the way of Piltdown man.



Independent verified evidence....


----------



## Oddball (Nov 29, 2009)

That's evidence that ice and snow melt when it gets warm out. Nothing more.


----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2009)




----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2009)




----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 29, 2009)

Chris said:


> I love this right wing love fest over a small university in England that no one has ever heard of.
> 
> How desperate are you?



Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely  not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.


lol..yes a little place no one has heard of...fo rbeing such a global warming hack Chris you sure as hell don't know shit about where the IPCC gathers their info

fucking moron


----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2009)




----------



## Oddball (Nov 29, 2009)

I hear that the Scandinavian Vikings were raising cattle on Greenland, where glaciers are today.

You s'pose their Saabs and Volvos melted the ice back then?


----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2009)




----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2009)




----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2009)




----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 29, 2009)

Chris said:


> I love this right wing love fest over a small university in England that no one has ever heard of.
> 
> How desperate are you?



Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely &#8211; not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.


lol..yes a little place no one has heard of...fo rbeing such a global warming hack Chris you sure as hell don't know shit about where the IPCC gathers their info

fucking moron


----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2009)




----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 29, 2009)

Indian Scientists Call UN Glacier Retreat Claim Unscientific

Greenland icecap thickens despite warming  News in Science (ABC Science)

Hubbard Glacier refuses to fade away

ALASKAâS ICE THICKENS OVER UNUSUAL SUMMER

Climate change: The elements conspire against the warmists - Telegraph

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking | The Australian

Global Warming Hoax: News / Comments / Antarctic Sea Ice Up Over 43% Since 1980, Where Is The Media?

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

DailyTech - Glaciers in Norway Growing Again

Stubborn glaciers fail to retreat, awkward polar bears continue to multiply - Telegraph

The world has never seen such freezing heat - Telegraph

Canada's highest peak growing, researcher finds

DailyTech - Sea Ice Growing at Fastest Pace on Record

http://www.cpom.org/research/djw-ptrsa364.pdf

Dennis T. Avery: Alaska's Glaciers Are Growing

DailyTech - Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years


----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2009)

Mount Kilimonjaro....


----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2009)




----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2009)




----------



## Si modo (Nov 29, 2009)

What is this?  A pissing contest of blogs?

Normally, I would say only peer-reviewed research should be considered when attempting to discuss science.

OK, I'll still say it.  Irrespective of the insult that some grossly dishonest 'scientists' have delivered to science and the peer-review process, there is still good research out there.


----------



## ctpatriot1970 (Nov 30, 2009)

Global Warming Fraud!!! Emergency Viral: ClimateGate Fraud Exposes Dirty Tricks Agenda For Global Government..Globalist minion Al Gore and the United Nations climate change shysters led by Phil Jones are in trouble..

Last week hackers uncovered a pile of email and documents revealing what many of us already knew  the climate change agenda is based not only on easily debunked junk science, but outright lies and deception.

In the wake of the damning revelations exposed by these anonymous hackers, the climate change snake oil salesmen Gore and his complaisant entourage of now discredited scientists are in full retreat. Even the corporate media  guilty of peddling the fabrication of man-made climate change for years with the best propaganda money can buy  are desperately scrambling to put the best spin possible on the emerging travesty.



Ok people is it finally setting in??? they use us, they lie to us they destroy our dreams why believe anything they ever say???


----------



## Ravi (Nov 30, 2009)

Nothing new, I see. A bunch of hysterical rightwingnuts are still trying to claim gw is a hoax perpetuated by scientists world wide with out any evidence.

tff!


----------



## JW Frogen (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


>



In the second picture look how the Matterhorn is pleasuring that cloud.

I like that.

Give it to that fluffy cloudy you mountain of luvvvv!


----------



## Annie (Nov 30, 2009)

Si modo said:


> What is this?  A pissing contest of blogs?
> 
> Normally, I would say only peer-reviewed research should be considered when attempting to discuss science.
> 
> OK, I'll still say it.  Irrespective of the insult that some grossly dishonest 'scientists' have delivered to science and the peer-review process, there is still good research out there.



Problem is, how much of what is passing for 'good science' in favor of that theory, relies on the data from U of A? 

Climate change data dumped - Times Online



> From The Sunday Times
> November 29, 2009
> Climate change data dumped
> Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
> ...



Flip side, considering the known comments via email, how successful were these men and women at preventing alternative studies to be considered in 'peer reviewed' journals? This week the strongest 'defense' postings of these scientists have come via Realclimate which Jones said that he and others could control which posts appear, meaning they have/had administrative controls themselves or by proxies.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

"Value-added"

What a euphemism!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 30, 2009)

Wisconsin Glacier











I like this one better


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 30, 2009)

ONE IN SEVEN SCIENTISTS SAY COLLEAGUES FAKE DATA

&#8220;Faking scientific data and failing to report commercial conflicts of interest are far more prevalent than previously thought, a study suggests.&#8221; -- Hannah Devlin

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6425036.ece


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wisconsin Glacier


The lengths people will go to keep the Illinoyances south of Beloit is amazing, isn't it?


----------



## Big Fitz (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > We've heard of the IPCC, Penn State, the Universities of Arizona and Colorado, NASA and NOAA....All of whom were circle jerking with the East Anglia CRU.
> ...


And mankind has nothing to do with it even if it was happening.


----------



## Big Fitz (Nov 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wisconsin Glacier
> ...


That would be FIBs for those in Door County.


----------



## Big Fitz (Nov 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> Even small time bookies keep better records.


Small time bookies are expected to turn a profit.  Scientists aren't.


----------



## Big Fitz (Nov 30, 2009)

I want Chris to answer another questions.  Lots of pictures of glaciers melting.

What's the problem?  We lost glaciers from the ice age.  Do we need to get them back?  I fail to see this as a crisis.

and of course, it's still not our fault even if it IS a problem.  Adapt or die.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

Chrissy only begs the same stale questions over and over and over and over again, he doesn't answer them.

Least of all has he ever come up with an answer as to what criteria he would accept, which would prove to him that the AGW hoax is all wet.


----------



## KMAN (Nov 30, 2009)

So let me get this right...  Our current Government believes the UN should have authority to basically tell us (US Citizens) how to live, yet UN scientists are hiding data so the truth can not be found about climate change....  WTF...


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> I love this right wing love fest over a small university in England that no one has ever heard of.
> 
> How desperate are you?


Yeah....Small university.



> *The University of East Anglia - in particular its Climatic Research Unit - is the only university to be included in a list of the key bodies that have set the environmental agenda in the UK over the past 30 years.*


*
CRU key to setting environmental agenda - University of East Anglia (UEA)*http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2008/june/CRU+key+to+setting+environmental+agenda

Speaking of desperate......


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

Looks like other IPCC participants are starting to throw the hoaxers overboard.



> *Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process
> Eduardo Zorita, November 2009*



http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/myview.html

UN scientists turn on each other


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 30, 2009)

dude don't bother

chris will just spam pictures of glaciers that have shrunk but will ignore glaciers that have also grown


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

People other than Chrissy are keeping track.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> Looks like other IPCC participants are starting to throw the hoaxers overboard.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As they should, if they value the integrity of science more than politics.


----------



## Big Fitz (Nov 30, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> dude don't bother
> 
> chris will just spam pictures of glaciers that have shrunk but will ignore glaciers that have also grown


So you're saying he's editing the data to fit his desired result?  Sounds like his heroes at the IPCC and EAU.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 30, 2009)

I'm still not convinced that there is a conspiracy....and I won't be until Glenn Beck cries over it and tells me what he thinks.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

Most here are convinced you're a total meathead, though.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 30, 2009)

oh yeah Dud? - well I guess you do speak for most of the fucktards here.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 30, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> oh yeah Dud? - well I guess you do speak for most of the fucktards here.


Pretty much.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

Verrrrry apropos avie you chose there, Ravi.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Nov 30, 2009)

Gee, anthropogenic climate change is B.S.  Wow.. who'd a think that.  Are you saying that Al Gore has been pulling our legs?


----------



## Dr.House (Nov 30, 2009)

Jayboy Canuckstain said:


> oh yeah Dud? - well I guess you do speak for most of the fucktards here.



I'm sure that means a lot coming from the most unoriginal fuckstain here...


Time for another unoriginal picture from some leftist hack site that tells you how to think...


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 30, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> Jayboy Canuckstain said:
> 
> 
> > oh yeah Dud? - well I guess you do speak for most of the fucktards here.
> ...




coming from someone who is about as much a Doctor as the Dud is a scientist.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Now, all the data is mysteriously "gone."

All of this over -- egads -- a freedom of information request.

And for some reason, this doesn't bother the chrissys, Jay Cumsucks, Old Crocks' and Ravis of the world.

Now, had this same bit happened with let's say, BLACKWATER with "hacked" emails, then data conveniently "disappearing," all because of a little FOIA request, they would be pissing all over themselves...


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

Maybe they could Google "Rosemary Woods".


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> Maybe they could Google "Rosemary Woods".


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Now, all the data is mysteriously "gone."
> 
> All of this over -- egads -- a freedom of information request.
> 
> ...


Remember a private phone call between Gingrich and Boehner that "accidentally-on-purposely" got recorded and turned over to the NYT and Jim McDermott?

Didn't hear any of the usual suspects playing the "this was obtained illegally" card back them.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 30, 2009)

so have all the conspirators of this grand scheme been all rounded up yet?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> so have all the conspirators of this grand scheme been all rounded up yet?


The, "If no one was arrested then they did nothing wrong" card.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 30, 2009)

the "we have nothing but inuendo" card


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> the "we have nothing but inuendo" card




Your delusion knows no bounds. Neither does your knee-jerk, instinctive defense of anything negative towards your AGW religion!

You have no problem at all with these scientists "losing" raw data? Is that at the very least, incompetence?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 30, 2009)

just how many scientists are involved in this conspiracy again?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 30, 2009)

and I'm not defending anyone....just trying to get the facts straight about this huge conspiracy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 30, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> just how many scientists are involved in this conspiracy again?








Phil Jones


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 30, 2009)

Phil Jones? - gasp!!!..... this is even bigger than I imagined.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> just how many scientists are involved in this conspiracy again?


http://www.usmessageboard.com/1758997-post1.html

Of course, like any other scam, they're only the tip of the iceberg.

Also, there's no telling how many honest scientists took the cooked data on good faith and based their further work on it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 30, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Phil Jones? - gasp!!!..... this is even bigger than I imagined.



Jay, are you retarded? I know it's not the polite PC way of asking, but you seem to be a nitwit and I don't want to be too cruel if the problem is some genetic defect and not that you're just a total fucking moron.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 30, 2009)

is Phil Jones the evil ringleader of the biggest scientific conspiracy ever perpetrated on mankind?....he does look dangerous with those wee beady eyes and unbuttoned 70's collar!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 30, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> is Phil Jones the evil ringleader of the biggest scientific conspiracy ever perpetrated on mankind?....he does look dangerous with those wee beady eyes and unbuttoned 70's collar!



He's the George Washington of the AGW movement.

Clue: get one today


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 30, 2009)

Terry said:


> Well for many of us we knew this was all BS but now the others that was taken for a ride has to open their eyes if not then they are without a doubt on a different planet.
> 
> The Jig is up!



You can't tell religous zealots that the religion they believe in is wrong.   

Try telling a Muslim that there is no Allah and Mohammed never existed.
Try telling a catholic GOD isn't real and Jesus was just some lucky dude who everyone said was the non-existant GOD's child.

Go ahead, even with proof to the contrary or a lack of back up evidence they will still tell you God/Allah and the prophets are real.

Same with Global Warming (Man Made) zealots, its their religion, its the thing they believe in and will not give it up.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> and I'm not defending anyone....


Yes, you are. Attempting to defend via deflection and ridicule. Except you're the only dumbass clod who can't see it's not working.





> just trying to get the facts straight about this huge conspiracy.


You have no interest whatsoever in facts, never have. Otherwise you would be ready to savage these sons of bitches for "losing" ALL the raw data!


----------



## concept (Nov 30, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> the "we have nothing but inuendo" card



All Al Gore has been giving you is inyourendo. 

You obviously seem to like it though.


----------



## concept (Nov 30, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> and I'm not defending anyone.....


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 30, 2009)

and what exactly did Phil do?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 30, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> and what exactly did Phil do?



Jay.

Jay.

Jay.  Have you read anything at all in any ClimateGate thread or do you just post because you like the attention?


----------



## concept (Nov 30, 2009)

Big Fitz said:


> I want Chris to answer another questions.  Lots of pictures of glaciers melting.
> 
> What's the problem?  We lost glaciers from the ice age.  Do we need to get them back?  I fail to see this as a crisis.
> 
> and of course, it's still not our fault even if it IS a problem.  Adapt or die.



We've had what... 4 or 5 ice ages?

Chrissy is an idiot apologist.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 30, 2009)

lost data = conspiracy?....hmmmmmm!


----------



## concept (Nov 30, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Nothing new, I see. A bunch of hysterical rightwingnuts are still trying to claim gw is a hoax perpetuated by scientists world wide with out any evidence.
> 
> tff!



Without any evidence?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 30, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Terry said:
> 
> 
> > Well for many of us we knew this was all BS but now the others that was taken for a ride has to open their eyes if not then they are without a doubt on a different planet.
> ...


And global warming deniers are exactly the same...two sides of the coin.

But this conspiracy is the most amusing one I've seen in a while.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > and what exactly did Phil do?
> ...


He's not reading at all, because he really doesn't care. His mind is made up, and he has zero interest in anything that goes against his stance. This is called, "closed minded."

He's merely soooo afraid that if he doesn't defend this, even as weakly as he is, that he might get kicked out of the cult!

He doesn't realize it's okay to just ignore this stuff, or even let one honest statement creep out such as, "this is really bad, a black eye for science" and move on.

He CAN'T move on, because he so greatly fears getting kicked out of the cult!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> lost data = conspiracy?....hmmmmmm!


Raw data which is mysteriously "lost" after this story broke, which is the SAME raw data requested in the FOIA request that started all of this.

I suppose it's better for these scientists to claim incompetence than to turn over the data.


----------



## concept (Nov 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > I love this right wing love fest over a small university in England that no one has ever heard of.
> ...



Critical theory.

It was a small town in Alaska too. 

Same shit, different lib.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 30, 2009)

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Terry said:
> ...



Show me the inarguable facts that prove, without a doubt, that man is causing the earth to warm and I wont deny it.   

But when we have the data being destroyed and erased (o wait i mean "lost") if it contradicts the religous zealots belief that global warming is a man made occurance i find it hard to believe that it is indeed man made warming.   Especially with the climate data showing no increase in temps over the last 10 years.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Ravi said:


> And global warming deniers are exactly the same...two sides of the coin.
> 
> But this conspiracy is the most amusing one I've seen in a while.


Now, all the data is mysteriously "gone."

All of this over -- egads -- a freedom of information request.

*And for some reason, this doesn't bother the chrissys, Jay Cumsucks, Old Crocks' and Ravis of the world.*

Now, had this same bit happened with let's say, BLACKWATER with "hacked" emails, then data conveniently "disappearing," all because of a little FOIA request, they would be pissing all over themselves...


----------



## concept (Nov 30, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> lost data = conspiracy?....hmmmmmm!



Hi.

It was lost. It was thrown out.


They kept the "worked" data but tossed out the raw accurate data.

How conveeeenieeennnnnnt.   


I can't believe you are buying into this.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > lost data = conspiracy?....hmmmmmm!
> ...



this does sound like a mystery! - where is Scooby when you need him?


----------



## concept (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > lost data = conspiracy?....hmmmmmm!
> ...



We can prove it but we discarded the data. Us super double extra smart scientists don't know how to back up data. 



Holy fucking jeebus.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 30, 2009)

so this is quite a mysterious conspiracy indeed! ..... I am so intrigued! tell me more !!!!!!!!


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 30, 2009)

so some lost data totally refutes the general agreement among a vast majortity of the worlds scientists that man-made climate change is a reality?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 30, 2009)

You can't "lose" data that is a matter of public record. Wherever the original data came from still exists.


----------



## Annie (Nov 30, 2009)

Ravi said:


> You can't "lose" data that is a matter of public record. Wherever the original data came from still exists.



Untrue. They didn't 'share' any or much with any outside people. The data they published was all 'adjusted' using questionable, meaning people couldn't figure out how or what they were adjusting for. See Ravi, that's a big part of the problem. Now the adjustments were made, then changed, which is where the code comes in. You would have to go and find prior discussions on that.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 30, 2009)

Annie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > You can't "lose" data that is a matter of public record. Wherever the original data came from still exists.
> ...


I saw them. The data that was adjusted had to do with tree ring declines after 1960. I've read whatever has been posted on this topic and I am skeptical to say the least. I made my position clear early in the thread and it hasn't changed because there has been nothing to change it.


----------



## concept (Nov 30, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> so some lost data totally refutes the general agreement among a vast majortity of the worlds scientists that man-made climate change is a reality?



"some" lost data?




I guess we'll never know what they deliberately discarded.


----------



## JimH52 (Nov 30, 2009)

I found half dozen of simlar articles to this one.

Salon.com Mobile

Still waiting for the smoking gun.  If there is one, I would love to see it.  Laymen seem to be making a lot to do about nothing, but I have an open mind.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 30, 2009)

Ravi said:


> You can't "lose" data that is a matter of public record. Wherever the original data came from still exists.



I haven't seen religious zealotry spin something like this since the christians said the bible gave them the right to persue the crusades.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 30, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> I found half dozen of simlar articles to this one.
> 
> Salon.com Mobile
> 
> Still waiting for the smoking gun.  If there is one, I would love to see it.  Laymen seem to be making a lot to do about nothing, but I have an open mind.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

concept said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > so some lost data totally refutes the general agreement among a vast majortity of the worlds scientists that man-made climate change is a reality?
> ...


I keep saying this scandal gets more an more like Watergate every day!

*Rose Mary Woods*

Fiercely loyal to Nixon, Woods claimed responsibility in 1974 grand jury testimony for inadvertently erasing up to 5 minutes of the 18 1/2 minute gap in one of the Nixon audio tapes (specifically, the one from June 20, 1972) that were central to the scandal. Her demonstration of how this might have occurredwhich depended upon her stretching to simultaneously press controls several feet apart (what the press dubbed the "Rose Mary Stretch"[3]) was met with skepticism from those who believed the erasures, from whatever source, to be deliberate. Later investigators identified five to nine separate erasures. The contents of the gap remain a mystery.

Rose Mary Woods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 30, 2009)

"I keep saying this scandal gets more an more like Watergate every day!"


yes Prof. Dud.... we know you keep repeating yourself - the question is do you believe that doing so will make you anymore credible?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.


----------



## Dr.House (Nov 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.



That'll be different...

He's used to getting his opinions from HuffyPuffy or UnthinkingNoProgress...


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 30, 2009)

Prof. Dud waxs forth with more science and then the Dr. lays another zinger on us..... I think they should get a room together.


----------



## Annie (Nov 30, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> I found half dozen of simlar articles to this one.
> 
> Salon.com Mobile
> 
> Still waiting for the smoking gun.  If there is one, I would love to see it.  Laymen seem to be making a lot to do about nothing, but I have an open mind.



It's going to come from the research folks and/or computer folks, that's my guess:

More on Climategate - Clive Crook

Link rich, including journals:



> ore on Climategate
> 
> 30 Nov 2009 09:40 am
> In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back.
> ...


----------



## Ravi (Nov 30, 2009)

The hackers are more like the plumbers that W&B.

I will not be surprised if the hackers were backed by some rabid denier group...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 30, 2009)

Has spoken once again.

Listen up or go to hell you deniers!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Ravi said:


> The hackers are more like the plumbers that W&B.
> 
> I will not be surprised if the hackers were backed by some rabid denier group...


First off, there weren't any "hackers." The massive zip file containing the emails and the code was released by this guy:

Keith Briffa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, let's review:

We are supposed to trust these guys to be unbiased, clinical, and professional. In stonewalling a legitimate FOIA request, they gave us this mess.

Thanks to Briffa, who is one of the scientists, we now know they are NOT unbiased and definitely have a political agenda and aren't afraid to "adjust" hard data to appear to say what they want it to say. So, out goes the "clinical" part too.

"Losing" ALL of the raw data, right on schedule -- the very data that was requested to start with -- leaves us with incompetence at the very least. A SCIENTIST _losing_ raw data? (And in this case, a group of them.) Unthinkable in the scientific community. Until now.

They are biased.
They are unprofessional, not objective.
They are incompetent.
They are liars.

And one of them had a conscience. And here's the words of one of the most fierce AGW believing media persons:



> _There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.__Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
> 
> I believe that the head of the unit, *Phil Jones, should now resign.* Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.*I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely. *_


Skepticism. That's what Monbiot above admits he should have had alot more of.  NOW he gets it, why don't you? That's what we ALL should have, especially now. VERY healthy and on-alert skepticism.

If you don't, you're a hapless moonbat dolt.


----------



## eagleseven (Nov 30, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> I found half dozen of simlar articles to this one.
> 
> Salon.com Mobile
> 
> Still waiting for the smoking gun.  If there is one, I would love to see it.  Laymen seem to be making a lot to do about nothing, but I have an open mind.


If you don't understand the implications of actively subverting peer-review, you have no grasp of the scientific process.


Interesting that you are claiming "no smoking gun" when there is no way you could have processed the 130 gigabytes of data.


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

IanC said:


> Jay- do you think the people who are concerned about the fraudulent claims of AGW are proponents of increasing carbon emissions? there are lots of people who believe in a green lifestyle who don't want to unilaterally cripple the economy and put a huge debt on the backs of working people. there have been many great improvements in the last few decades and there are more to come but the business of carbon tax will surely degrade into a ripoff of regular people.



This is one of the funniest posts I have ever read.

The carbon tax will degrade into a ripoff of regular people?

What do you think the oil companies are doing now?????


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> What do you think the oil companies are doing now?????


Getting all up in this "green" thing, positioning themselves to make TRILLIONS off of it.


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > You can't "lose" data that is a matter of public record. Wherever the original data came from still exists.
> ...



I know the right is really putting a spin on what is basically pretty obvious.

The poles and the glaciers are melting, and the temperatures are rising, and we have doubled CO2.

No question about it.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> What do you think the oil companies are doing now?????


A combination of hedging their bets, a PR campaign and throwing a bone to WarmerNazis.


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > What do you think the oil companies are doing now?????
> ...



The irony is that green energy can very easily be made at home.

Each of us could produce our own energy.

Then the big companies would be out of the loop.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> I know the right is really putting a spin on what is basically pretty obvious.
> 
> The poles and the glaciers are melting, and the temperatures are rising, and we have doubled CO2.
> 
> No question about it.


No they're not, you lying sack of shit.

Numerous links were posted last night, and you refuse to accept the facts.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


When you show me where it's cost beneficial and truly carbon neutral, I'll stop laughing.

However, cap and trade will artificially inflate _everyone's _utility bills, making "green" solutions for the home almost _look_ viable!


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 30, 2009)

why even bother responding to chris

the guy is a fucking idiot 

he doesn't want to accept the fact that yes there are some glaciers melting but there are also glaciers growing!

just ignore him


----------



## Modbert (Nov 30, 2009)

I try to keep up on this topic, however the moonbats on both sides make that pretty difficult.

So can anyone on either side explain to me what happened in the Larsen Ice Shelf then? Specifically Larsen B.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 30, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> why even bother responding to chris
> 
> the guy is a fucking idiot
> 
> ...





He is a remarkable example of uneducated hubris to be sure...


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> I try to keep up on this topic, however the moonbats on both sides make that pretty difficult.
> 
> So can anyone on either side explain to me what happened in the Larsen Ice Shelf then? Specifically Larsen B.


Such towering irony, this post.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> I know the right is really putting a spin on what is basically pretty obvious.
> 
> The poles and the glaciers are melting, and the temperatures are rising, and we have doubled CO2.
> 
> No question about it.



Here are links from  enviromoonbat sites that beg to differ:

Growing Arctic Ice Sheets Threaten Growing Polar Bear Populations

Arctic Ice*Growing - ECO News - ECO-CAN.ca

Give up on the lies, dickless.


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > I know the right is really putting a spin on what is basically pretty obvious.
> ...



Numerous links to what?

Your imagination?

Fuck you, idiot.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

Cast your eyes upward, asshole.


----------



## driveby (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Don't mean to intrude on the domestic dispute here but how about you start with the two he just posted you dickless wonder ..........


----------



## eagleseven (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> Numerous links to what?
> 
> Your imagination?
> 
> Fuck you, idiot.


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Insulated homes....cost efficient and carbon neutral.

Solar panels...cost efficient and carbon neutral.

Small wind mills...cost efficient and carbon neutral.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


^^^This does not CREATE energy.





> Solar panels...cost efficient and carbon neutral.
> 
> Small wind mills...cost efficient and carbon neutral.


Proof?


----------



## Modbert (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Such towering irony, this post.



So instead of trying to answer my legitimate question, you're a dick about it. No surprise.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> Insulated homes....cost efficient and carbon neutral.
> 
> Solar panels...cost efficient and carbon neutral.
> 
> Small wind mills...cost efficient and carbon neutral.


You're such a fucking deluded idiot, I don't know why I am wasting my time but here goes:

"Cost efficient" over how long of a term of payout? 10? 15? 20-25 years?

The up-front capital invested is amortized out over time, by supposedly lower utility bills, tax breaks and incentives. You're telling ME that with my monthly electric bill of $100 a month average that I'm really gonna see a return on solar panels, batteries, controls and a windmill in under 20 fucking YEARS?

It is NOT cost effective!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Such towering irony, this post.
> ...


You failed to see the towering irony of YOU calling others moonbats, in the same post where you blathered more moonbattery with a bullshit rhetorical question. No surprise.

My pointing it out isn't being a "dick" it's being a good citizen of the board. If you don't like it, go fuck yourself.

You actually said, paraphrased, "I am trying to keep up with this topic but all the moonbats on both sides make it hard" then said, again paraphrasing, "But what about THIS glacier that is MELLLLTED!!!!"

You fucking moron. You have not kept up with the topic because 1.) You're essentially lazy and 2.) you don't really care if the leading scientists in the AGW field are lying, falsifying data, stonewalling FOIA requests and then "losing" the requested data, as they SAID IN THE EMAILS THEY MIGHT DO!

You should be PISSED OFF about it.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> You failed to see the towering irony of YOU calling others moonbats, in the same post where you blathered more moonbattery with a bullshit rhetorical question. No surprise.
> 
> My pointing it out isn't being a "dick" it's being a good citizen of the board. If you don't like it, go fuck yourself.
> 
> ...



How is it a bullshit rhetorical question? I guess you aren't well informed about what's going on up there.

You're not being a good citizen.

I asked both sides for an answer. I never said moonbats in this thread, I was speaking in general terms.

And by the way?

1.) I'm not essentially lazy. I don't have the time to commit to learning everything about this situation. I don't know if you're retired, but if you are, some of us aren't.

I think the mere fact that I'm on here almost daily wanting to learn about politics, current events, and issues facing our world today is the opposite of being lazy. But once again, all you are is full of put downs.

2.) I do care if they are lying. I'm not jumping to conclusions quite yet, and you shouldn't either. I figured after that whole suicide fed thing that everyone on here would slow down on jumping to conclusions to this level at the very least. But I suppose not.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > You failed to see the towering irony of YOU calling others moonbats, in the same post where you blathered more moonbattery with a bullshit rhetorical question. No surprise.
> ...


 By definition it's a question the one asking already knows the answer to, or already has a position or opinion on. And when it's off-topic, it's also called deflection.





> I'm on here almost daily wanting to learn


No, you're not. You are here wanting to pose as a non-partisan while at the same time regurgitating and parroting the far-left position, and trolling and attempting to derail threads such as this one.

Just shut up, little boy Robert. You haven't the candlepower, experience, patience or the wherewithal to stand up in a real debate. You need to use the time you spend blathering on message boards, BACK IN SCHOOL actually getting the education you desperately need.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> 2.) I do care if they are lying. I'm not jumping to conclusions quite yet, and you shouldn't either. I figured after that whole suicide fed thing that everyone on here would slow down on jumping to conclusions to this level at the very least. But I suppose not.


This scandal involves more than 60 gigs of e-mails written in English and over 70 gigs of FORTRAN code yet to be deciphered, not just a chunk of paper with three letters scrawled on it.

But I suppose you're still waiting for Michael Mann to come out and declare "I'm not a crook", huh?


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Insulated homes....cost efficient and carbon neutral.
> ...



Of course it is...

In a country that ranks among the worlds highest for average number of sunny days per year, solar energy has long been seen as a key natural resource here.

All the more fitting that on the eve of its Independence Day Israel launched what it said was the first solar farm of its kind, billed as a breakthrough that will make it affordable to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

The technology, a system of rotating dishes made up of mirrors, is capable of harnessing up to 75 percent of incoming sunlight  roughly five times the capacity of traditional solar panels. In addition, using mirrors to reduce the number of photovoltaic cells needed, it makes the cost of solar energy roughly comparable to fossil fuels.

In Israel, solar power that won&#8217;t need subsidies | csmonitor.com


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> 2.) I do care if they are lying. I'm not jumping to conclusions quite yet, and you shouldn't either.


Hey, stupid fuck. I have READ all the emails, and studied the codes released. I have read and bookmarked almost every media and print article on this, and also a couple of dozen blog posts. Have you even _attempted _to study this?

Didn't think you had.

Bone up on the subject, perchance to be able to have useful and meaningful dialogue on it.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> By definition it's a question the one asking already knows the answer to, or already has a position or opinion on. And when it's off-topic, it's also called deflection.
> 
> No, you're not. You are here wanting to pose as a non-partisan while at the same time regurgitating and parroting the far-left position, and trolling and attempting to derail threads such as this one.
> 
> Just shut up, little boy Robert. You haven't the candlepower, experience, patience or the wherewithal to stand up in a real debate. You need to use the time you spend blathering on message boards, BACK IN SCHOOL actually getting the education you desperately need.



Except I don't know the answer to or any opinion on it. I know about it because my state was brought up when it happened.

As for me, I am wanting to learn. Maybe you're too much of a dick to have an actual conversation who doesn't hop in agreeing with you, but I get along with plenty of people on here who do not hold the same views I do.

Feel free to bring up my age, please do so some more, you only show your needing to take a refuge in more personal attacks against me. Once again, you show us all what you're full of, which by the way is shit.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


You move the goalposts again.... This time from home use to industrial use.

See what a hack you are yet?


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > I know the right is really putting a spin on what is basically pretty obvious.
> ...



Give up your lies, asshole.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> This scandal involves more than 60 gigs of e-mails written in English and over 70 gigs of FORTRAN code yet to be deciphered, not just a chunk of paper with three letters scrawled on it.
> 
> But I suppose you're still waiting for Michael Mann to come out and declare "I'm not a crook", huh?



No, but the obvious isn't always the answer. Again, recent stuff in the last week should show that.

I'm just not jumping to conclusions quickly. Do you care to answer my question or are you going to insult me as well?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Except I don't know the answer to or any opinion on it.


*Start a fucking thread on it then, instead of using it to deflect and derail others threads!*

THIS fucking thread is about the Warmergate scandal, not about your pet glacier that died!

Fucking hack.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Do you care to answer my question or are you going to insult me as well?


*Your bullshit question is a separate topic!!!*

What part of that do you not get?


----------



## Modbert (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Hey, stupid fuck. I have READ all the emails, and studied the codes released. I have read and bookmarked almost every media and print article on this, and also a couple of dozen blog posts. Have you even _attempted _to study this?
> 
> Didn't think you had.
> 
> Bone up on the subject, perchance to be able to have useful and meaningful dialogue on it.



Except I have never stated whether the emails were right or wrong. In fact, all I asked was a question and you flip out on me like a child who's toy got taken away.

Good to know someone has the time to do all that, I don't. Why? Too busy learning in college. So when I come on here, attempting to get both sides opinion to make my own conclusion, I get bitched out by someone like you. 

This is why I usually stay out of the Environment forum, too much emotions running high and being taken out in the wrong places.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > This scandal involves more than 60 gigs of e-mails written in English and over 70 gigs of FORTRAN code yet to be deciphered, not just a chunk of paper with three letters scrawled on it.
> ...


The obvious as spoken by the malefactors themselves?

Do you have any idea how much you sound like a Nixionoid from 1973?

I can insult you , though, if it'll make you feel better.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> THIS fucking thread is about the Warmergate scandal, not about your pet glacier that died!
> 
> Fucking hack.



I figured this was about global warming, especially since this what this thread has become.

However, you could of asked nicely and suggested to start a new thread. However, that seems to take too much effort for you to act like a normal human being without a stick up your ass.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> This is why I usually stay out of the Environment forum, too much emotions running high and being taken out in the wrong places.


High emotions are what happens during interventions of alcohol/drug abusers and cultists.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> The obvious as spoken by the malefactors themselves?
> 
> Do you have any idea how much you sound like a Nixionoid from 1973?
> 
> I can insult you , though, if it'll make you feel better.





You've already decided that asking me politely to make a new thread about it or answering my legitimate question is too much effort.

I didn't realize not jumping to conclusions make me sound like a Nixionoid. Nice to know, don't like that someone doesn't go lock step with you, you insult them.


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Keep trying....the you could build a system based on the Zenith Solar Z-10 that would fit in your backyard. 

Busted!

ZenithSolar >75% Efficiency in the Field > Products


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, stupid fuck. I have READ all the emails, and studied the codes released. I have read and bookmarked almost every media and print article on this, and also a couple of dozen blog posts. Have you even _attempted _to study this?
> ...


You asked a OFF TOPIC bullshit DEFLECTION question, pissant puke.





> So when I come on here, attempting to get both sides opinion to make my own conclusion, I get bitched out by someone like you.


You attempted NO SUCH THING! You are just fucking LYING now!





> This is why I usually stay out of the Environment forum, *too much emotions running high *and being taken out in the wrong places.




Your little butthurt ass excepted, of course. 

Take some TIME to study this controversy. Dude made a very nice sticky thread just for folks such as yourself, who make the lameass excuses like "I can't read through all these moonbat posts to find out what's being talked about..."

You make the lame fucking excuse even though you KNOW the sticky thread exists!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


What would be the payout? Do you know?

You fail miserably, again.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> You make the lame fucking excuse even though you KNOW the sticky thread exists!



The sticky thread doesn't answer my question. You do in fact realize you could of asked me nicely to make a new thread, instead of acting like someone who's cereal was pissed in.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > THIS fucking thread is about the Warmergate scandal, not about your pet glacier that died!
> ...


Robert, just shut the fuck up. You're embarassing yourself massively.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > You make the lame fucking excuse even though you KNOW the sticky thread exists!
> ...


Your question is NOT the topic here.


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Are you joking?

Did you read the article or are you just throwing shit against the wall to see if it will stick?

The technology is here and now. It's just a question of using it.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Robert, just shut the fuck up. You're embarassing yourself massively.



Ironic, coming from the man who has had a meltdown over the last several posts over a simple question. Now, do you have anything to say, or are you going to repeat yourself like a broken record?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


NO pricing. Therefore there is NO way to know how many years the payout would be. You continue to just try to baffle with bullshit, because you cannot dazzle with brilliance.





> The technology is here and now. It's just a question of using it.


No, it is a question of, IS IT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE AND VIABLE. The panels, the batteries, the controls, the installation, ALL are capital investments. How long before I start to see a return on the investment? 15? 20? 25 years?

By then I am REPLACING panels and batteries!

C'mon now, nitwit. Try to stay at least on the same playing field.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Robert, just shut the fuck up. You're embarassing yourself massively.
> ...


1.) It's not a "meltdown" or anything close to it. Bitch-slapping a little weak bitch like you isn't a "meltdown." 2.) It wasn't a "simple question" it was a bullshit, off-topic one you posed while calling others moonbats. And when I pointed out the irony, you got all butthurt.

Now go play, little boy.


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Try to admit defeat. Oh wait, you insulted me, that's your wait of admiting you lost...

Founded in 1999 as First Solar Holdings, LLC), in Phoenix, Arizona, the company has since taken the nation by storm, expanding production overseas and selling panels in the EU in a marketplace where government subsides promise the largest reward.

But that is changing, with the EU&#8217;s two largest solar aficionados (Germany and Spain) cutting back their subsidies in the wake of persistent recession. So First Solar, whose Q3 stock took a hit on worldwide projections of stockpiled solar panels and lower prices for silicon chips, is pulling in its wings and ramping up locally.

First Solar recently spent $100 million to boost the capacity of its Perrysburg, Ohio solar panel production facility, adding a fourth production line that will make the total capacity 2.8 million panels a year (up from 2 million) beginning in March of 2010. The facility also adds office space and research center, expected to create 140 new jobs.

First Solar also manufactures in Germany and Malaysia, and &#8211; as one of the most respected solar companies in the nation &#8211; was added to the Standard &Poor&#8217;s Index in October. The S&P is a stock market analytics tool like the Dow Jones and NASDAQ, comprised of leading U.S. companies.

On Feb. 24, First Solar announced that it had brought manufacturing costs for solar panels down to $1 per watt, down from $3 over the past four years, a feat it accomplished by increasing production 50-fold.

The company, which expanded from production into rooftop solar, and then into utility-scale solar, has 1.3 gigawatts of solar electricity either on the ground or ready to launch; this, in spite of the fact that total U.S. production (1.6 gigawatts) ranks fourth globally, behind Germany, Spain and Japan.

First Solar Ramps up Solar Panel Production, Eyes China | Cooler Planet News


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


 There's no need for that at all, except on your end. *Because you are still yet to show us even ONE example of what you originally claimed -- that home solar and a windmill is cost effective.*

Hint: It's not, until cap and trade passes. This will artificially inflate everyone's utility bills, making home "green" technologies _appear to be almost viable_. And that's the goal of it.

Once again: My electric bill averages $100 a month. My house is all electric as well. So, how long of a payout would I have on installing solar and a windmill?

Either answer or just shut the fuck up. I have done the research for MY particular situation, and in doing so even created an amortization chart for others to use. This shit is NOT viable unless you enjoy a 10-25 year payout on your fucking investment.


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

The Marauder is busted....

Green Dream: A Solar Power Plant in Your Backyard | Popular Science


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> The Marauder is busted....
> 
> Green Dream: A Solar Power Plant in Your Backyard | Popular Science


 You don't even read your own sources. This gem is in the article you linked:





> *How much will it cost? How much power can it generate? I want one right now! I sent them an e-mail and am waiting...*


See?

And that doesn't mention the cost of the BATTERIES and the CONTROLS.


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

Marauder busted again....oh that had to hurt....

Southwest Windpower Skystream 3.7 Residential Wind Generator Reviews - EcoHuddle Community


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> Marauder busted again....oh that had to hurt....
> 
> Southwest Windpower Skystream 3.7 Residential Wind Generator Reviews - EcoHuddle Community


Did you read?





> The complete installation of the system on a 45' monopole tower cost me about $13,500.


That's a 12 year payout for me, how about you? You really wanna invest 13 grand and not see a return for 12 years?

The author also didn't mention batteries or controls.

You fail again!


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 30, 2009)




----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Marauder busted again....oh that had to hurt....
> ...



Don't worry little Marauder, it will only hurt for a little while.

I feel sorry for you. No stones at all.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> Don't worry little Marauder, it will only hurt for a little while.


That's correct, my sides which are aching right now from laughing at your failed ass will eventually stop hurting.





> I feel sorry for you. No stones at all.


Coming from you that is a complement.

Did you even bother to read your own links? The only one that had a cost number associated with it also had the guy saying his payout might be 7-8 years for the fucking junk. Will it even last that long?

You have been:


----------



## Ravi (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> First off, there weren't any "hackers." The massive zip file containing the emails and the code was released by this guy:
> 
> Keith Briffa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ken Briffa confessed to releasing the emails? Link?


----------



## Missourian (Nov 30, 2009)

That's Chris's modus operandi...if you hand him his ass in a debate, he cut-n-pastes 20 crap links and claims victory.





From 1-13-09:



Missourian said:


> Yes it is but Chris is impervious to facts and reason.
> 
> You shouldn't waste you're time.
> 
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ents-for-supporting-gun-ownership-rights.html


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > First off, there weren't any "hackers." The massive zip file containing the emails and the code was released by this guy:
> ...


Excellent! Someone is actually reading posts and paying a modicum of attention! You're the FIRST one Ravi!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/dude-with-midnight-marauder.html


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

This is too easy....

How I built an electricity producing wind turbine


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

Much too easy...

All small wind turbines - Portal to the world of Small Wind Turbines


----------



## Ravi (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...


That's your link...a conversation between you and Dud??? And none of your fellow conspiracy theorists called you on it. TOO FUCKING FUNNY!!!

Thanks for the laugh but I actually feel embarrassed for you.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> This is too easy....
> 
> How I built an electricity producing wind turbine




You link to a guy who built a tiny wind generator -- that would only serve 1/50th of my electric needs which are really small, and who built it because there was NO utility service on his remote land among the jackrabbits, and you think it somehow makes your original point?

News flash: It doesn't!

Stop it, taking Tylenol for my hurt sides already! And you _have _to be getting really tired of uprooting and moving the goalposts every five minutes!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


You failed to see the significance of it, or chose not to do so.

At least YOU alone are paying attention and at least reading. Can't say that for the other dingbats.


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

And then there's this...

how to Make Solar Panels - Make Build Small Solar Panel - Home Made Wind Power Turbine Generator  make solar power  solar electricity - recharge battery reconditioning


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> Much too easy...
> 
> All small wind turbines - Portal to the world of Small Wind Turbines


You're simply indiscriminately flooding the thread now. Not one link you have posted supports your earlier claim.

But do continue, I always enjoy making pukes like you jump through hoops!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> And then there's this...
> 
> how to Make Solar Panels - Make Build Small Solar Panel - Home Made Wind Power Turbine Generator  make solar power  solar electricity - recharge battery reconditioning


You're simply indiscriminately flooding the thread now. Not one link you have posted supports your earlier claim.

But do continue, I always enjoy making pukes like you jump through hoops!


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

The Z-10 idea is pretty simple. It is almost like having one of the old satellite dishes in your back yard. 

Too bad little Marauder doesn't understand technology.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> The Z-10 idea is pretty simple. It is almost like having one of the old satellite dishes in your back yard.
> 
> Too bad little Marauder doesn't understand technology.


The Z-10 might make a nice water heater. On sunny days.

Too bad little Chrissy is too stupid to understand the meaning of the word "viable."


----------



## Missourian (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > And then there's this...
> ...




Well there you go...proof positive and true to form.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/95445-the-warmergate-scandal-42.html#post1765238


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)




----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 30, 2009)

Missourian said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Yes he is a well known troll. It's also well known he cannot stand up in the crucible of honest debate.

Doesn't stop me from occasionally using him for a game of "kick the can" for as long as it amuses me!


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

Zenith bought the rights to the solar technology from Ben-Gurion University and Germany's Fraunhofer Institute. A joint Israeli-German research team from the two organizations designed a working prototype, which consists of a 10-sq.-meter (107.6-sq.-ft.) dish lined with curved mirrors made from composite materials. The mirrors focus the sun's radiation onto a 100-sq.-centimeter (15.5-sq.-in.) "generator" that converts light to electricity. The generator also gives off intense heat, which is captured via a water-cooling system for residential or industry hot-water uses. 

*Tested over the past few years at Israel's National Solar Center in the Negev desert, the prototype achieved astounding results: A concentration of solar energy that was more than 1,000 times greater than standard flat panels. *

At the Zenith of Solar Energy


----------



## Missourian (Nov 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Don't let your guard down,  his tactics are simple but effective.

He wears you down with sheer stupidity,  changes the subject 20 times,  moves the goalposts all over the field,  declares victory repeatedly then just when you think he has reached the limits of idiocy, he shows you his derangement knows know bounds.


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

Missourian said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Did you even read the article? Probably not...

 "The first generation of our technology should be capable of harnessing about 70% of the solar energy that hits the dish to produce electricity and thermal heat," says Faiman. With that type of efficiency, Zenith Solar says the cost of producing energy with its technology is close to that of conventional fuels. 

At the Zenith of Solar Energy


----------



## Missourian (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



*exasperated*  

The debate was cost effective home sized solar power.

From your link*The price tag for a home-size unit is likely to be less than $20,000.

*​That means 17 year return of your initial investment. 

And that's if nothing breaks or wears out (fat chance).



In other word,  NOT COST EFFECTIVE!!!


.
.
.
.


That is my one contribution to your delusional pipe dream assertions.

Your lunacy is only surpassed by your dishonesty.


----------



## concept (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Not sure where you live, but here in Michigan all our homes are insulated.

Solar panels are not cost effective.

Small windmills are useless. They couldn't even power up your vibrator.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 30, 2009)

concept said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

Oh, it can't be done! The oil and coal companies told me so!

DARMSTADT, Germany &#8212; From the outside, there is nothing unusual about the stylish new gray and orange row houses in the Kranichstein District, with wreaths on the doors and Christmas lights twinkling through a freezing drizzle. But these houses are part of a revolution in building design: There are no drafts, no cold tile floors, no snuggling under blankets until the furnace kicks in. There is, in fact, no furnace. 

In Berthold Kaufmann&#8217;s home, there is, to be fair, one radiator for emergency backup in the living room &#8212; but it is not in use. Even on the coldest nights in central Germany, *Mr. Kaufmann&#8217;s new &#8220;passive house&#8221; and others of this design get all the heat and hot water they need from the amount of energy that would be needed to run a hair dryer. *


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27house.html


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

Missourian said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



No, you are the one who is dishonest.

The guy from Popular Science built one in his backyard.

You didn't read any of my links, did you?

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-07/green-dream-solar-power-plant-your-backyard


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

Then there is home ethanol production, which is already cost effective....

The MicroFueler produces ethanol using membrane distillation. Sugar, yeast and water are blended together to create the chemical reaction that produces ethanol. After two days, the fermented sugar water is turned into vapor, and the ethanol is separated from the water. By the end of the week, the MicroFueler reservoir will hold 35 gallons of pure ethanol, enough to fill at least two cars. This is a lot like Dean Kamen's water purifier, except in reverse. In fact, creator Floyd Butterfield says the water by-product is clean enough to drink.

The most astounding part is that a car doesn't require pure ethanol to run, due to its higher-than-gasoline octane content. E-Fuel says you can fill up your tank with 75% ethanol and 25% water and your car will run fine.

The price tag may seem steep, but federal, state and local tax credits can bring the price as low as $5000&#8212;average cost with credits is more like $7000. The creators say an average home will save around $4200 on gas each year, and the machine will pay for itself in about a year and a half.

MicroFueler Home Ethanol Pump Unveiled, Ready For Pre-Orders - Ethanol - Gizmodo


----------



## sherp (Nov 30, 2009)

Climategate is real, its a fraud and put over on the first world countries by Al and his pals. China, Asia and Russia don't agree and are laughing their heads off at us. When has warm been bad? Its the cold and 2 miles of ice that covered much of Europe, Canada and the USA that was a deterent. Glad the truth has come out and glad that neither the weather or the climate furfilled the scam.


----------



## eagleseven (Nov 30, 2009)

What the hell does renewable power generation have to do with lying climatologists?

Zilch.

Back to the topic:



> Bret Stephens: Climategate: Follow the Money - WSJ.com
> 
> Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called&#8212;without irony&#8212;the climate change "consensus."
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

sherp said:


> Climategate is real, its a fraud and put over on the first world countries by Al and his pals. China, Asia and Russia don't agree and are laughing their heads off at us. When has warm been bad? Its the cold and 2 miles of ice that covered much of Europe, Canada and the USA that was a deterent. Glad the truth has come out and glad that neither the weather or the climate furfilled the scam.



No, the only thing that is real is that we have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 200 years, and the earth is warming.

The arctic ice is melting and so are the glaciers. Glacier National Park is down to 27 glaciers from a high of 150. The North Pole is melting.

Atmospheric CO2 is at the highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

Ocean temperatures are at the highest level ever recorded.

Do you read at all?


----------



## eagleseven (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> Do you read at all?


I tend to avoid reading fraudulent reports.

Back to topic:
Climategate: Follow the Money


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Do you read at all?
> ...



No, you tend to avoid reading the truth.

That is why you are ignorant.


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## sherp (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> sherp said:
> 
> 
> > Climategate is real, its a fraud and put over on the first world countries by Al and his pals. China, Asia and Russia don't agree and are laughing their heads off at us. When has warm been bad? Its the cold and 2 miles of ice that covered much of Europe, Canada and the USA that was a deterent. Glad the truth has come out and glad that neither the weather or the climate furfilled the scam.
> ...


Sure. "Watts Up With THat" tells the whole story. We have prospered during warming periods and not during cold periods like even the Little Ice Age. Siberia, Canada, our own North, Greenland and Iceland would love to increase their temperature by a few degrees but if its just 1 degree, they will like that too. Glaciers come and go. Its a natural cycle. The Medial Warm Period was lots warmer and folks loved it, grew grain and multiplied. The 2 Mile covering of Ice over the land was not good and nothing flurished. Who cares if the North Pole is melting? Which it is not. Polar Bears have increased to 25,000 and the Polar Bear folks say "There are a lot more bears, not a few but lots". CO2 is good and helps us flurish. A short history of the time of humans demostrates that warm is good and cold is bad.


----------



## eagleseven (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> No, you tend to avoid reading the truth.
> 
> That is why you are ignorant.



Back to topic:
Climategate: Follow the Money


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > No, you tend to avoid reading the truth.
> ...



Back to the topic...

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat...

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

CNN...That'll convince them every time.


----------



## concept (Nov 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> CNN...That'll convince them every time.



He must be joking now.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 30, 2009)

> CO2 is good and helps us flurish


ey, if you're radical enough to think warming up the earth unnaturally is a good thing....  Let's steal all the rain from China!


----------



## Missourian (Nov 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...




MM responded fool.


*The debate was cost effective home sized solar power.*.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.




Midnight Marauder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The Marauder is busted....
> ...




Another dishonest Fail for Chris.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

Toronado3800 said:


> Hey, if you're radical enough to think warming up the earth unnaturally is a good thing....  Let's steal all the rain from China!


Who sez one has anything to do with the other?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 30, 2009)

If this is 1/4 correct a bunch of folks probably aren't too keen on melting ice
Glacier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The volume of ice is so large that if the Greenland ice sheet melted, it would cause sea levels to rise six meters (20 ft) all around the world. If the Antarctic ice sheet melted, sea levels would rise up to 65 meters (210 ft).

******************************


> Who sez one has anything to do with the other?


They have nothing to do with eachother.  I was being ridiculous Dude.  Trying to come up with something equal to what someone said about warming up the earth being a good thing.  My sarcasm is lost in my typing.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 30, 2009)

So what?

The coasts are all filled with rich people and their hoity-toity waterfront property, who can afford to build new homes inland......What's the big deal?


----------



## Chris (Dec 1, 2009)

Missourian said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Another bullshit response.

Utility companies buy the electicity you produce, so you don't need batteries.


----------



## Chris (Dec 1, 2009)

(CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility. 

A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.
 Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous. 

However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. 

The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments. 

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? 

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second. 

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. 

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com


----------



## Oddball (Dec 1, 2009)

Yup...Sourcing CNN will stop 'em in their tracks every time.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 1, 2009)

Coming from people that swallow whole misinformation on a message board your criticism of Chris is a riot.


----------



## del (Dec 1, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> I'm still not convinced that there is a conspiracy....and I won't be until Glenn Beck cries over it and tells me what he thinks.



i'm still not convinced you're a primate.

go figure, eh?


----------



## concept (Dec 1, 2009)

WHats the over under on deflections from Chris today?


----------



## ozzmdj (Dec 1, 2009)

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation 

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 1, 2009)

Chris said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



That's not science, that an opinion poll.

The Science tells us even though there's been a de minimus, almost imperceptible increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2, overall temperatures continue to decline


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 1, 2009)

Chris said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Chris, tell me again how the Terrible CO2 Spaghetti Monster is eating all the Glaciers.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 1, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Coming from people that swallow whole misinformation on a message board your criticism of Chris is a riot.


Since Chris completely ignores evidence --even from greenie sites-- that turn his hallucinations on their head, watching anyone attempt to defend him is a riot.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 1, 2009)

Chris said:


>


How well's that work at 4am on a January morning in Minnesota when the outside air temp is down to -20?  Gonna keep that water warm for a shower?

Viable and easy, my ass.  Get back to me when you have the arctic tested version.


----------



## concept (Dec 1, 2009)

Back onto the topic that Chris is so desperately and obviously..  trying to deflect.

The Mann Correction Vector.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Coming from people that swallow whole misinformation on a message board your criticism of Chris is a riot.
> ...



INDEED


----------



## Oddball (Dec 1, 2009)

This just in...Phil Jones has stepped down while the investigation continues.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> This just in...Phil Jones has stepped down while the investigation continues.



another classic


----------



## Oddball (Dec 1, 2009)

Penn State to investigate Michael Mann--or whitewash him


----------



## Si modo (Dec 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> This just in...Phil Jones has stepped down while the investigation continues.


Good.  As he should.  At least that has a smidgen of integrity.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 1, 2009)

The Phil Jones blurb:

UK climate scientist to temporarily step down - Yahoo! News


----------



## Si modo (Dec 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> The Phil Jones blurb:
> 
> UK climate scientist to temporarily step down - Yahoo! News


I have little doubt that it was a 'mutual' decision.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> The Phil Jones blurb:
> 
> UK climate scientist to temporarily step down - Yahoo! News



Oh its "temporary"


----------



## The T (Dec 1, 2009)

Here's a whole mess of articles courtesy of el-Rushbo...

[Enjoy]

&#8226; Climate Depot: Exclusive - Continuously Updated 'ClimateGate' News Round Up

&#8226; EIB Official Climatologist Dr. Spencer: UN IPCC Process 'is Dangerous for the Progress of Science'

&#8226; American Thinker: CRU Emails Were Leaked Before They Were Hacked - Thomas Lifson

&#8226; UK Times: Climate Change Data Dumped

&#8226; UK Telegraph: Leaked Climate Change Emails 'Won't Bias UN Global Warning Body' Says Chairman 

&#8226; Canada Free Press: Let the Great Global Warming Cover-Up Begin!

&#8226; Detroit News: Climategate Prof Raked in $22.6 Million in Grants

&#8226; University of East Anglia: CRU Key to Setting Environmental Agenda

&#8226; FOXNews: Document Reveals U.N.'s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker in

  Global Environmental Talks - George Russell 

&#8226; Sweetness & Light: IPCC Head: Tax Unsustainable Lifestyles

&#8226; UK Scotsman: Warming will 'Wipe Out Billions'

&#8226; Canada Free Press: The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate

&#8226; Compilation of key ClimateGate emails

&#8226; NewsBusters: ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media's Job

&#8226; Wall Street Journal: Rigging a Climate 'Consensus' 

&#8226; Sweetness & Light: Climate Is The Cause Of Conflict In Africa


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> Penn State to investigate Michael Mann--or whitewash him



For now a largely symbolic gesture.

The amount of grant monies Mann has helped generate is likey quite considerable.  No way the university is going to cut that off unless absolutely necessary.  For now the appearance of an investigation without the substance of one.

That could change though as this story continues to grow.

Currently the Brits and the Aussies are far more pissed than we are...


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 1, 2009)

The T said:


> Here's a whole mess of articles courtesy of el-Rushbo...
> 
> ____
> 
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Dec 1, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Penn State to investigate Michael Mann--or whitewash him
> ...


Penn State is also getting letters from alums do dump Mann, and that's where a lot of the big money comes from.


----------



## concept (Dec 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> This just in...Phil Jones has stepped down while the investigation continues.



Is this where I should drop in a picture of a melting ice cube?


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...




If true that would indeed be helpful - the alumni association, if unified in its displeasure, can create a great deal of pressure on the administration.


----------



## The T (Dec 1, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a whole mess of articles courtesy of el-Rushbo...
> ...


 
Exactly. What I have in these threads called _*pecuniary interest*_. 

And Of course Rush has called it for what it is as well:


*It's Not a Consensus, It's a Cabal <LINK*

*You should go there and see the illustration Rush has on the page ... And read Rushs' take. *

*Glad that you found something that caught your eye. *


----------



## Ravi (Dec 1, 2009)

Rush is bloviating so it must be true.


----------



## The T (Dec 1, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > The Phil Jones blurb:
> ...


 
just until it blows over methinks. They think this scam isn't going to take off...but judging from coverage -or lack of it-?

It will catch on...-people will see how they've been scammed especially when Cap And Tax Legislation is further debated...that is unless it has been temporarily sheleved too?

But then isn't the Liar And Chief going to Copenhagen soon?


----------



## The T (Dec 1, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Rush is bloviating so it must be true.


 
-YOU- appear a little thin in the skin and hungry. Here-This one is on me. 




 Chow down...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 1, 2009)

The T said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Rush is bloviating so it must be true.
> ...



Those aren't the ones filled with cheeze though .


----------



## Jay Canuck (Dec 1, 2009)

now it's Rush vs the majortiy of the worlds scientists!



*[SIZE=+1]Junkie named top conservative[/SIZE]* 
*The vulgar Pigboy "most influential" Rethug* 
* Link* * Excerpt:* 
By a wide margin, Americans consider Rush Limbaugh the nation's most influential conservative voice. Those are the results of a poll conducted by "60 Minutes" and Vanity Fair magazine and issued Sunday. The radio whore was picked by 26 percent of those who responded, followed by Glenn Beck at 11 percent. Actual politicians - Cheney and Palin - were the choice of 10 percent each. Asked to choose from among seven presidents, Americans tapped John F. Kennedy as the one they'd like to see added to Mount Rushmore. Kennedy polled 29 percent, with Ronald Reagan second at 20 percent.


----------



## The T (Dec 1, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


 

Hey! I tried...


----------



## Si modo (Dec 1, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...














Certified organic.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 1, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> now it's Rush vs the majortiy of the worlds scientists!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did you miss the whole "Phil Jones resigned" thingy?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 1, 2009)

Looks like some of the code is being deciphered.

Can't get to any of the "harry read me" sites on Google searches...Servers busy or crashed.


----------



## The T (Dec 1, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > now it's Rush vs the majortiy of the worlds scientists!
> ...


 
Guess 'Knuckster missed it. But that's of no consequence. I suppose 'Knuckster HAD TO comment on Rushs' attack on these FAUX scientists which puts Rushs' assertion to the forefront that this whole issue is indeed a fraud, and has nothing to do with science but is for political control of the world economy.

At least 'Knuckster sees it, therefore attacks Rush. (I'd be disappointed if he and his fellow travellers didn't).


----------



## The T (Dec 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> Looks like some of the code is being deciphered.
> 
> Can't get to any of the "harry read me" sites on Google searches...Servers busy or crashed.


 

I'd be curious of the outcome of your search...


----------



## Annie (Dec 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> This just in...Phil Jones has stepped down while the investigation continues.



I just saw this!


----------



## Annie (Dec 1, 2009)

Si modo said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


Would Annie make anything not Organic?  Actually one of my favorite producers for low-salt foods.


----------



## Annie (Dec 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> Looks like some of the code is being deciphered.
> 
> Can't get to any of the "harry read me" sites on Google searches...Servers busy or crashed.



Some here:

small dead animals: Y2Kyoto: I Miss The Antarctic Ice Cap



> November 29, 2009
> 
> Y2Kyoto: I Miss The Antarctic Ice Cap
> The Great Melt: a pictorial essay from a pilot's perspective. Zoom in on the lonely floating ice chunks while you still can, as ours will be the last generation to witness it.
> ...



More here:

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/29/11967916-sun.html


----------



## Oddball (Dec 1, 2009)

Got 'em!

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

Ya beat me again...Dammit!


----------



## Annie (Dec 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> Got 'em!
> 
> http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
> 
> Ya beat me again...Dammit!



 I just found out about Phil Jones, I thought it would have happened yesterday.


----------



## The T (Dec 1, 2009)

Annie said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


----------



## The T (Dec 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> Got 'em!
> 
> http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
> 
> Ya beat me again...Dammit!


 
Awesome! Good work...Lengthy friggin' file however!


----------



## eagleseven (Dec 1, 2009)

Why would the director of the CRU _step down_, if there was nothing incriminating in the hacked documents?


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 1, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Why would the director of the CRU _step down_, if there was nothing incriminating in the hacked documents?





Ssshhhhh, you are upsetting the flat-earth warmers in here....


----------



## concept (Dec 1, 2009)

Liberals are such dupes.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 1, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Why would the director of the CRU _step down_, if there was nothing incriminating in the hacked documents?



He's hand carrying bags of ice to the melting glaciers


----------



## Dr.House (Dec 1, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Why would the director of the CRU _step down_, if there was nothing incriminating in the hacked documents?



Perhaps he was promised a Czar position...


----------



## Maple (Dec 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> Say it ain't so, Joe!
> 
> So much for the credibility of that mythical "90% of scientists"!
> 
> ...



Arrest Al Gore if you can catch him while he is flying around on his PRIVATE plane, spewing out co2 all over the world.


----------



## The T (Dec 1, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Why would the director of the CRU _step down_, if there was nothing incriminating in the hacked documents?


 This fact alone raises a RED FLAG to anyone with a shred of intelligence...


----------



## The T (Dec 1, 2009)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsskd9LCp_Y"]Rush - The Big Money ( A Show Of Hands )[/ame]

Remember the words *Pecuniary Interests...*

And that's all these FAUX Scientists are about...their Wallets...\\They've been CAUGHT...


----------



## Chris (Dec 1, 2009)

Yes, pecuniary interests.

Like the oil and coal lobbyists that drive the global warming deniers....


----------



## The T (Dec 1, 2009)

Chris said:


> Yes, pecuniary interests.
> 
> Like the oil and coal lobbyists that drive the global warming deniers....


 
And I notice YOU come on here when most have gone to BED...\\And what's WRONG with Free Enterprise?

NOTHING. You Hate Liberty, Freedom Chris, under a False FLAG of Global Warming.

Admit it to us? YOU are an ASSHAT. You subscribe to something that isn't proven, and never will be except FORCED by LAW.

You've been OWNED, as have those that ALTERED 'SCIENCE' to their own aims.

Go away LIAR. You have become BORING actually.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 2, 2009)

Sound like you're talking about a belief in God.

btw...why are the most idiotic rightwing posters all from Florida


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2009)

And still, even with the "hockey stick" increases in CO2, Earth cooled since 1996.  Go figure.

Well maybe weather is a complex system subject to many variables including the Sun being a plasma and Earth's wobbly orbit.


----------



## JWBooth (Dec 2, 2009)

If ole AlGore hadn't invented the internet, there wouldn't have been any emails to hack and the info on the AGW scam could have been buried on the back page of the Saturday paper.  Then again, this overblown nonsense wouldn't have gotten beyond a couple of issues of Time Magazine to begin with.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2009)

MMGW is the greatest scientific fraud in human history.


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 2, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> MMGW is the greatest scientific fraud in human history.




And yet, the mainstream media continues to only give this scandal passing notice...


----------



## eagleseven (Dec 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> Yes, pecuniary interests.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M[/ame]


----------



## Jay Canuck (Dec 2, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > now it's Rush vs the majortiy of the worlds scientists!
> ...



no I didn't ...that is what most people do when they are under investigation - unless you're Larry Craig or Sanford. ....I guess your point here is that he is guilty of something?


----------



## eagleseven (Dec 2, 2009)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## Annie (Dec 2, 2009)

There are consequences, beyond saying that teachers shouldn't be naysaying global warming, the 'settled science.' 

Pajamas Media » Competitive Enterprise Institute Petitions EPA to Suspend Proposed CO2 Regs



> Competitive Enterprise Institute Petitions EPA to Suspend Proposed CO2 Regs
> Posted By Marlo Lewis On December 2, 2009 @ 2:48 pm In . Column1 02, Environment, Politics, Science, Science & Technology, US News, Uncategorized | 3 Comments
> 
> In light of the Climategate fraud scandal, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) on Wednesday filed a petition [1] asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend its plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions using the Clean Air Act, pending a thorough investigation of and public comment on the newly released information.
> ...


----------



## Zander (Dec 2, 2009)




----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 3, 2009)

lol.  Darn Al Gore.  I'm gonna talk him into supporting privatized social security or something I don't believe in.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 3, 2009)

Pioneer anomaly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gravity and celestial mechanics we're only so-so on, but ManMade Global Warming is still settled science.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 3, 2009)

> It&#8217;s been nearly two weeks since a scandal shook many people&#8217;s faith in the scientists behind global warming alarmism. The scandal forced the University of East Anglia (UK) to divulge that it threw away raw temperature data and prompted the temporary resignation of Phil Jones of the university&#8217;s Climate Research Unit.
> 
> Despite that resignation and calls by a U.S. senator to investigate the matter, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programming has remained silent &#8211; not mentioning a word about the scandal since it broke on Nov. 20, even as world leaders including President Barack Obama prepare to meet in Copenhagen, Denmark next week to promote a pact to reduce greenhouse gases.



12 Days, 3 Networks and No Mention of ClimateGate Scandal


----------



## Oddball (Dec 3, 2009)

Well, there's soooo much more important news out there, like Merideth Baxter Birney being a lezbo.


----------



## The T (Dec 3, 2009)

Gore Bails On Cophenhagen 

LOL!






*We Blinded You With Science<Audio Link*


----------



## The T (Dec 3, 2009)

Ame®icano;1775231 said:
			
		

> > Its been nearly two weeks since a scandal shook many peoples faith in the scientists behind global warming alarmism. The scandal forced the University of East Anglia (UK) to divulge that it threw away raw temperature data and prompted the temporary resignation of Phil Jones of the universitys Climate Research Unit.
> >
> > Despite that resignation and calls by a U.S. senator to investigate the matter, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programming has remained silent  not mentioning a word about the scandal since it broke on Nov. 20, even as world leaders including President Barack Obama prepare to meet in Copenhagen, Denmark next week to promote a pact to reduce greenhouse gases.
> 
> ...


 
Of course they ignore it...they'd be admitting they bought into a pile of shit.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 3, 2009)

Dude said:


> Well, there's soooo much more important news out there, like Merideth Baxter Birney being a lezbo.



Not to mention Tiger Woods...


----------



## The T (Dec 3, 2009)

Ame®icano;1775261 said:
			
		

> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Well, there's soooo much more important news out there, like Merideth Baxter Birney being a lezbo.
> ...


 
Which are nothing but _tabloid HORSESHIT_ anyway...temember "Cult Of Personality" drives news cycles these days...

*[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn8sd2aAWE0"]Living Colour - Cult Of Personality[/ame]*


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 3, 2009)

The T said:


> Ame®icano;1775231 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Question is, why?

Is that a signal that left is going to Copenhagen as nothing happened? They sure would like to impose new taxes and spend more money...


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 3, 2009)

Did anyone noticed, there is no outrage from the left complaining that FOX is making this whole thing up just like they did ACORN?


----------



## The T (Dec 3, 2009)

Ame®icano;1775278 said:
			
		

> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1775231 said:
> ...


 
Their _AGENDA_ of _Control_ is far more important...Remember BOXER says that the 'HACKER' (Who at this point is a disgruntled associate...and on _foreign shores)..._"_Should be prosecuted..."_

WHY? because that hacker unveiled the _Agenda. _And Obama and the left WILL go on as if nothing happened...for they LIVE in the "Universe of LIES"...it's whom these people are, and how they got to their lofty positions to *control *you and I...

They Target Corporations and the Ivory Towers...but fail to mention that _they_ RESIDE in the _Ivory Tower *Next Door...*_

*Which reveals them as hypocrites...and they cannot have that...*


----------



## The T (Dec 3, 2009)

Ame®icano;1775294 said:
			
		

> Did anyone noticed, there is no outrage from the left complaining that FOX is making this whole thing up just like they did ACORN?


 
They're flummoxed...now they want the 'hacker' prosecuted...good luck with that...for it doesn't change a friggin' thing...


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 3, 2009)

I guess this is not a story the *state run media* wants to report. There is far too much money and power involved in continuing the "man made" global warming claim.

I could agree that what happened at The University of East Anglia is is not enough to dismiss every study by every university and every climate study program around the world. It certainly reflects badly upon them, but it doesn't mean very much in the overall scheme of things, and that is probably why the "scandal" has received scant attention in the media. But after what happened there, I would insist on revision and investigation on all available (not deleted) data that could support any claim.

That said, I remain very skeptical of these warnings of impending planetary doom coming from Al Gore and others. Some of them are exaggerated, some are motivated by greed, a yearning for attention, or even a lust for power, but some of them still seem credible. It's time to recheck everything and meanwhile, pull the breaks on any spending that expecially now, we cannot afford.

This is still too big and important story to be ignored by anyone...


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 3, 2009)

did only one group of ppl keep track of temperature records for the entire planet?

At work, and we're a small business, we keep records for different information either on one computer or another primarily but we end up using working copies on other computers which also function as back ups.  Then a good amount of our information ends up with the accountant or even filed in my own email when I take work home.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 3, 2009)

did only one group of ppl keep track of temperature records for the entire planet?

At work, and we're a small business, we keep records for different information either on one computer or another primarily but we end up using working copies on other computers which also function as back ups.  Then a good amount of our information ends up with the accountant or even filed in my own email when I take work home.


----------



## The T (Dec 3, 2009)

Ame®icano;1775333 said:
			
		

> I guess this is not a story the *state run media* wants to report. There is far too much money and power involved in continuing the "man made" global warming claim.
> 
> I could agree that what happened at The University of East Anglia is is not enough to dismiss every study by every university and every climate study program around the world. It certainly reflects badly upon them, but it doesn't mean very much in the overall scheme of things, and that is probably why the "scandal" has received scant attention in the media. But after what happened there, I would insist on revision and investigation on all available (not deleted) data that could support any claim.
> 
> ...


 
*Climate Scientist Steps Down* <LINK

*By KEITH JOHNSON, JEFFREY BALL and GAUTAM NAIK *

The British scientist at the heart of a scandal over climate-change research temporarily stepped down Tuesday as director of a prominent research group amid an internal probe that follows the release of hacked emails involving him and other scientists.

People in Copenhagen form the logo of a campaign to cut carbon emissions to 350 parts per million.








The University of East Anglia in the U.K. said Phil Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit, had decided to step aside from the director's post.

The announcement comes less than a week before world leaders are set to meet for a climate summit in Copenhagen. The two-week conference, sponsored by the United Nations, is supposed to come up with tougher policies to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and slow global warming.

_______________________

Indeed WHY would he step DOWN? (If this isn't such a BIG DEAL)?

Precisely because of embarassment...they've been CAUGHT...

And it is indeed HUGE...because of the ramifications that foretold of sanctions against huge segments of many Western Economies...If they didn't scale BACK their 'Cabon Footprint'...

Total and complete legislation that sought to commandeer Billions, if not Trillions of dollars by legislative FIAT that could very well send those Western Economies into a lesser status if the premise went on...and give it to third world Economies...It is a redistribution scheme...primarily targeted on the United States IMHO...

This was one of Control...particuliarally from the UN (IPCC)...and touted by US Politicians as _Gospel...With ensuing Legislation that seeks to alter the lifestyles and Liberties of millions..._and again on a failed premise.

WE don't have the power to alter Climate on this scale. never have, never will. Anything to the contrary is sheer Human Vanity.


----------



## concept (Dec 3, 2009)

Obama is going so we can still call it 

dopenhagen.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 4, 2009)

The T said:


> Ame®icano;1775231 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






indeed..................and if there were ever more of a slam dunk once and for all that the media is hyper left, I dont know what it is.

We dont have a journalism anymore..........we have a propaganda arm of the left!!!


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 4, 2009)

The apparent internal hysteria taking place brings to mind a continuing thread of this board which attributes Bush's advancement of the Iraq war to a conspiracy to make lots of people (haliburton) rich.  Yet, the facts to justify such a contention do not give concrete proof.

This is even more of a smattering of accusations and I still do not see any concrete proof to justify the present hysteria.  All the scientific analysis that I see justifies global warming concerns.  Some embarassing and often crass e-mails do not change that.

If this become news worthy, the major networks, including the GOP station FOX will be all over it.  I will wait...


----------



## code1211 (Dec 4, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> The apparent internal hysteria taking place brings to mind a continuing thread of this board which attributes Bush's advancement of the Iraq war to a conspiracy to make lots of people (haliburton) rich.  Yet, the facts to justify such a contention do not give concrete proof.
> 
> This is even more of a smattering of accusations and I still do not see any concrete proof to justify the present hysteria.  All the scientific analysis that I see justifies global warming concerns.  Some embarassing and often crass e-mails do not change that.
> 
> If this become news worthy, the major networks, including the GOP station FOX will be all over it.  I will wait...





I can see where concern is justified.  Anything beyond concern, like public money spent, for instance, is not justified.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 4, 2009)

Welcome Back, Little Friend!   I always knew you weren't melting the ice caps!


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 4, 2009)

There are just too many indepedent analysis that say the same thing, to take a caspiracy from these e-mail releases seriously.  I am open minded and not sold on all the Global warming theory and will wait until something compelling tells me otherwise, but at this point, I don't see a reversal of the scientific facts established.  I will wait...


----------



## concept (Dec 4, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> There are just too many indepedent analysis that say the same thing, to take a caspiracy from these e-mail releases seriously.  I am open minded and not sold on all the Global warming theory and will wait until something compelling tells me otherwise, but at this point, I don't see a reversal of the scientific facts established.  I will wait...



How many are based on the fudged CRU data?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 4, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> If this become news worthy, the major networks, including the GOP station FOX will be all over it.  I will wait...


The major networks, NBC in particular, are complicit.

Nothing brings in viewers like a good ole ongoing story about Armageddon.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 4, 2009)

Don't listen to Dude!  He preyed on your fears! Global Warming is real!!!!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 4, 2009)

Dude this video is for you.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXrc1XZayp4[/ame]


----------



## concept (Dec 4, 2009)

Here is an eye-popping "hit list" of emails.

- Bishop Hill blog - Climate cuttings*33



1. Briffa says he tried hard to balance the needs of the IPCC and science, which were not always the same.(1177890796)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1177890796.txt

2. Giorgio Filippo (University of Trieste) says that IPCC is not an assessment of published science but about production of results. Says there are very few rules and anything goes. Thinks this will undermine IPCC credibility. Says everyone seems to think it's OK to do this.(0968705882)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...=968705882.txt


3. IPCC review editor John Mitchell says that the issue of why proxy data for recent decades is not shown (he says it's because they don't show warming) needs to be explained. Also says that Mann's short-centred PC analysis is wrong and that Mann's results are not statistically significant.(1150923423)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1150923423.txt


4. Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1047388489.txt


5. Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709).
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...=939154709.txt


6. Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...=942777075.txt


7. Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...=872202064.txt


8. Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1255352257.txt


9. Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1255100876.txt


10. Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1054736277.txt


11. Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1257546975.txt


12. Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1254108338.txt


13. Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1254756944.txt


14. Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1106338806.txt


15. Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees Manns reconstruction has probable flaws.(1024334440)
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emai...1024334440.txt


16. Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones concurs. Says he will boycott the journal and resign from RMS if they dont back down.(1237496573)
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emai...1237496573.txt


17. Mann et al plot to have Tom Saiers (UVA) ousted from a position with journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) for allowing a piece critical of Manns work to be published (1106322460).
Mann refers to GRL leak being plugged after Saiers is ousted.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1106322460.txt
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1132094873.txt


18. Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1210367056.txt


19. Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1188557698.txt


20. Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...=938018124.txt


21. Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1219239172.txt


22. Revkin says Mann method can work only if certain assumptions are made. Quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1096382684.txt


23. Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !.(1089318616)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1089318616.txt


24. Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1255553034.txt


25. Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1249503274.txt


26. David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index to a more recent one. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because the impression of global warming will be muted.(1105019698)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1105019698.txt


27. confidential REALLY URGENT Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. (1054756929)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1054756929.txt


28. Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/em...1107454306.txt


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 4, 2009)

U.N. to Investigate Leaked E-Mails in Climate Data Scandal - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com



> Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have grilled government scientists on the leaked e-mails in a hearing Wednesday in Washington, but the scientists countered that the e-mails don't change the fact that the earth is warming.
> 
> "The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus ... that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
> 
> She said the e-mails don't address data from her agency or the U.S. space agency NASA, which both keep independent climate records that show dramatic global warming.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 4, 2009)

If that's the case, NASA and NOAA should have no problems passing an independent audit of their data.

And just for the record, _*yet again*_, "consensus" isn't scientific proof of anything.


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> If that's the case, NASA and NOAA should have no problems passing an independent audit of their data.
> 
> And just for the record, _*yet again*_, "consensus" isn't scientific proof of anything.



Well, it has to be true.  It was on fox.com!


----------



## Oddball (Dec 4, 2009)

Fox is irrelevant.

Nobody needs any "consensus" to scientifically prove that water runs downhill.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 4, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Welcome Back, Little Friend!   I always knew you weren't melting the ice caps!


Sad part is... unless Congresswoman Bachmann's "Freedom to Choose" bill gets passed, he will still be banned in the US in 2012


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> Fox is irrelevant.
> 
> Nobody needs any "consensus" to scientifically prove that water runs downhill.


I suggest we prove it by Waterboarding the global warming hoaxers.  Starting with Manbearpig himself.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 4, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> U.N. to Investigate Leaked E-Mails in Climate Data Scandal - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If only the partisan hacks were this outraged by invading Iraq. But oh, no...that was Bush their freaking homeboy.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 4, 2009)

Ravi said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > U.N. to Investigate Leaked E-Mails in Climate Data Scandal - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com
> ...


So you are for Saddam's rape rooms, genocidal plans for the Kurds, the suppression and oppression of all Non-Ba'athist people in Iraq and constant threats of warmongering on his neighbors?

Good to know.

Member of Amnesty International I presume.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 4, 2009)

Ravi said:


> If only the partisan hacks were this outraged by invading Iraq. But oh, no...that was Bush their freaking homeboy.



Ummm...Not only was I was I against invading Iraq, I was also against the continuing of the economic sanctions and "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq, put in place bay Shrubbie's daddy, and kept in place by Bubba for eight years.

And what were you saying while all this was going on?


----------



## Ravi (Dec 4, 2009)

Big Fitz said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


 If we were told THAT is why we were overthrowing Saddam, we as a people would have been able to have an informed opinion. But that isn't how it played out.

But I admire your ability to lick Bush's ass.


----------



## elvis (Dec 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > If only the partisan hacks were this outraged by invading Iraq. But oh, no...that was Bush their freaking homeboy.
> ...



you mean when clinton was bombing iraq?


----------



## Ravi (Dec 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > If only the partisan hacks were this outraged by invading Iraq. But oh, no...that was Bush their freaking homeboy.
> ...


I was for the sanctions and for letting the inspectors finish their job.

Regardless...I remember none of you wingnuts melting down over the invasion.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 4, 2009)

There you have it.

You supported the continuing state of war with Iraq, that was started in 1991, as long as the guy in charge of the effort had a (D) by his name.

I believe you've been decrying political hacks lately?


----------



## Ravi (Dec 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> There you have it.
> 
> You supported the continuing state of war with Iraq, that was started in 1991, as long as the guy in charge of the effort had a (D) by his name.
> 
> I believe you've been decrying political hacks lately?


I supported it because it worked. That isn't partisan...but your belief that it is...is partisan. 

And you didn't get this upset over Iraq, did you Dude?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 4, 2009)

No, it didn't work.

The more-or-less same policy has been applied to Cuba  for over 50 years and the Castros are still in power.

You're being a hack and we both know it.

P.S.....I'm not upset, I'm vindicated.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> No, it didn't work.
> 
> The more-or-less same policy has been applied to Cuba  for over 50 years and the Castros are still in power.
> 
> You're being a hack and we both know it.


Is Castro a threat to us? No. In fact he's a joke. And so was Saddam.

But I'm not surprised you pee your pants over those nasty Cubans invading the USA.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 4, 2009)

I haven't thought either was a threat.

You're a fake and a hack, Ravi.

Admitting it is the first step in recovery.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 4, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


No, there was thwarting the IEA, and Sec Council resolution 1440 among other reasons.

Don't forget, the intelligence they used was mostly from CLINTON ERA SOURCES!  Even Tony Blair's government stands to this day by it's findings.

Hmmmm??? Do I hear the Hypocrisy crickets once again?


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 4, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > No, it didn't work.
> ...


He's only a joke to the rest of the world.  Not to the millions of people he can still kill and make their lives a living hell.

Ever considered living your life under Papa Fidel's tender mercies?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 4, 2009)

Big Fitz said:


> Ever considered living your life under Papa Fidel's tender mercies?


I hear that they have the best healthcare in the world --though Fidel has traveled abroad for medical treatment-- and a 100% literacy rate.

I can't figure out why every lefty goober in Florida isn't getting on makeshift rafts to get _*to *_Cuba.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Ever considered living your life under Papa Fidel's tender mercies?
> ...


OSHA says that Michael Moore can't carry more than 2 people on his ass till they install safety railings.  Then they'll approve people to sail him to Cuba.

And when you ask them when they'll be moving to some third world commie shithole... that's when the libs tend to back down.  They know the truth then.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 4, 2009)

Big Fitz said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



So....how come you weren't all for invading the Congo with it's horrible disembowling rapes,, mutilations, child soldiers and civilian oppressions?

Oh...wait....that was Africa...who gives a shit?


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 4, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


When they start developing weapons of mass destruction and threaten the world's energy supply, maybe I'll give a shit.  

Spare me your sanctimony.  I'm not the one pretending nothing good came from knocking off Saddam and freeing the people there.  Moral relativism plays very poorly here.


----------



## asaratis (Dec 5, 2009)

From....

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

...I find these interesting.


22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software
suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the
definitive failure of the entire project..


..

Essentially, two thirds of the stations have no normals! Of course, this still leaves us with
a lot more stations than we had for tmean (goodnorm reported 3316 saved, 1749 deleted) though
still far behind precipitation (goodnorm reported 7910 saved, 8027 deleted).

I suspect the high percentage lost reflects the influx of modern Australian data. Indeed, nearly
3,000 of the 3,500-odd stations with missing WMO codes were excluded by this operation. This means
that, for tmn.0702091139.dtb, 1240 Australian stations were lost, leaving only 278.

This is just silly. I can't dump these stations, they are needed to potentially match with the
bulletin stations. I am now going to try the following:

1. Attempt to pair bulletin stations with existing in the tmin database. Mark pairings in the
   database headers and in a new 'Australian Mappings' file. Program auminmatch.for.

2. Run an enhanced filtertmm to synchronise the tmin and tmax databases, but prioritising the
   'paired' stations from step 1 (so they are not lost). Mark the same pairings in the tmax
   headers too, and update the 'Australian Mappings' file.

3. Add the bulletins to the databases.


.


An interesting aside.. David was looking at the v3.00 precip to help National Geographic with
an enquiry. I produced a second 'station' file with the 'honest' counts (see above) and he used
that to mask out cells with a 0 count (ie that only had indirect data from 'nearby' stations).
There were some odd results.. with certain months havign data, and others being missing. After
considerable debate and investigation, it was understood that anomdtb calculates normals on a
monthly basis. So, where there are 7 or 8 missing values in each month (1961-1990), a station
may end up contributing only in certain months of the year, throughout its entire run! This was
noticed in the Seychelles, where only October has real data (the remaining months being relaxed
to the climatology but excluded by David using the 'tight' station mask). There is no easy
solution, because essentially it's an honest result: only October has sufficient values to form
a normal, so only October gets anomalised. It's an unfortunate concidence that it's the only
station in the cell, but it's not the only one. A 'solution' could be for anomdtb to get a bit
more involved in the gridding, to check that if a cell only has one station (for one or more
years) then it's all-or-nothing. Maybe if only one month has a normal then it's dumped and the
whole reverts to climatology. Maybe if 4 or more months have normals.. maybe if >0 months have
normals and the rest can be brought in with a minor relaxation of the '75% rule'.. who knows.


.

Got all that fixed. Then onto the excessions Tim found - quite a lot that really should
have triggered the 3/4 sd cutoff in anomauto.for. Wrote 'retrace.for', a proglet I've
been looking for an excuse to write. It takes a country or individual cell, along with
dates and a run ID, and preforms a reverse trace from final output files to database. It's
not complete yet but it already gives extremely helpful information - I was able to look
at the first problem (Guatemala in Autumn 1995 has a massive spike) and find that a
station in Mexico has a temperature of 78 degrees in November 1995! This gave a local
anomaly of 53.23 (which would have been 'lost' amongst the rest of Mexico as Tim just
did country averages) and an anomaly in Guatemala of 24.08 (which gave us the spike):


.

Had to briefly divert to trick makegridsauto into thinking it was in the middle of a full 1901-2006
update, to get CLD NetCDF files produced for the whole period to June '06. Kept some important users
in Bristol happy.

So, back to VAP. Tried dividing the incoming TMP 7 DTR binaries by 1000! Still no joy. Then had the
bright idea of imposing a threshold on the 3.00 vap in the Matlab program. The result was that
quite a lot of data was lost from 3.00, but what remained was a very good match for the 2.10 data
(on which the thresholds were based).

I think I've got it! Hey - I might be home by 11. I got quick_interp_tdm2 to dump a min/max
for the synthetic grids. Guess what? Our old friend 32767 is here again, otherwise known as big-endian
trauma. And sure enough, the 0.5 and 2.5 binary normals (which I inherited, I've never produced them),
both need to be opened for reading with: 

  openr,lun,fname,/swap_if_big_endian

..so I added that as an argument to rdbin, and used it wherever rdbin is called to open these normals.



.

So, to station counts. These will have to mirror section 3 above. Coverage of secondary parameters is
particularly difficult - what is the best approach? To include synthetic coverage, when it's only at
2.5-degree?

No. I'm going to back my previous decision - all station count files reflect actualy obs for that
parameter only. So for secondaries, you get actual obs of that parameter (ie naff all for FRS). You
get the info about synthetics that enables you to use the relevant primary counts if you want to. Of
course, I'm going to have to provide a combined TMP and DTR station count to satisfy VAP & FRS users.
The problem is that the synthetics are incorporated at 2.5-degrees, NO IDEA why, so saying they affect
particular 0.5-degree cells is harder than it should be. So we'll just gloss over that entirely ;0)

ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all - 
we're not doing observed rain days! It's all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I'm going to need
conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF
happens to station counts?

OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.


.
...and this one is outstanding!
- Bishop Hill blog - Climate cuttings 33


I like this thread!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 5, 2009)

"There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."

Wowzers!!!!!


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 7, 2009)

> Increasing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global warming *could* also lead to more health concerns. A statement released from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said, "Climate change is *likely* to have wide-ranging and mostly adverse impacts on human health, with significant loss of life." As temperatures increase towards the poles, similar to farmland, insects and other pests migrate towards Earth's poles. These insects and pests *could* be allowed to migrate up to 550 Km or 550 miles. Some insects carry diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. Thus, an increase in these particular insects and pests closer to the poles results in an increase in these diseases. This *could* lead to 50 to 80 million additional cases of Malaria annually, a 10-15% increase. "Malaria and dengue fever are already beginning to spread pole wards", said Jane Lubchenco, past president of American Association for the advancement of science. (http://www.epa.gov/oppeoeel/globalwa...lth/index.html) Physician Paul Epstein, of Harvard's School of Public Health, says "Climate change is already a factor in terms of the distributions of malaria, dengue fever, and cholera." (www.aloha.net~jhanson/page70.htm)



Effects of Global Warming on Society - UofM

Could... likely... could... could... 

Interesting choice of words. It actually nice to see them in positive light. It would be almost the same even if the warming was a natural cycle. Then you get this... how convenient.



> The Environmental Protection Agency took a major step Monday toward regulating greenhouses gases, concluding that climate changing pollution threatens the public health and the environment.
> 
> The announcement came as the Obama administration looked to boost its arguments at an international climate conference that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation. The conference opened Monday in Copenhagen.



EPA says greenhouse gases endanger human health

If EPA steps in with this, dem's will become blameless. The EPA has been quietly passing regulations for years that are overwhelming anti-business and free market and this ruling means we are totally screwed. I am not sure the EPA has ever overturned one of it's own regulations, and they can use a judgement like this to reek havoc on this country.



> After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.



Imagine that. Just a day or two before Obama goes to climate summit. Who would have ever guessed?

And if you still have any doubts, here's a link to an article in the HP written by EPA Administer Lisa Jackson, proven environmentalist. Are you ready?

Why We Need to 'Sell' Environmentalism

Enjoy.


----------



## Zander (Dec 8, 2009)

Just remember- When you're losing the debate, re-define the issue.   The AGW hoaxers will move to the next phase - Get ready for the coming" Global Environmental Health Crisis".  Instead of Climate Change, a new mantra will emerge: we need to address the impending_ Global Environmental Health Crisis _

Here is the argument: 



> So what if reducing our dependence on fossil fuels doesn't really impact the climate the way we originally thought? It makes the air cleaner. And besides, going green is the more responsible way to act anyway. Is a Western lifestyle with its reliance on big houses, big cars, fast food, and red meat good for us anyway? Wouldn't we all be better off if we changed our ways? Okay, sure, maybe the sun and the natural cycles of the Earth have more to do with the planet's climate than SUVs and factories, but being overweight can kill you. You need to change for the sake of the planet, and your own good.



It is already happening......


----------



## Si modo (Dec 8, 2009)

Zander said:


> Just remember- When you're losing the debate, re-define the issue.   The AGW hoaxers will move to the next phase - Get ready for the coming" Global Environmental Health Crisis".  Instead of Climate Change, a new mantra will emerge: we need to address the impending_ Global Environmental Health Crisis _
> 
> Here is the argument:
> 
> ...


[Emphasis added]  "So what"?


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 8, 2009)

So, when the polar caps do finally all melt away and entire islands disappear from the oceans, let's all remember the stolen e-mails.


----------



## Annie (Dec 8, 2009)

Ame®icano;1788406 said:
			
		

> > Increasing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global warming *could* also lead to more health concerns. A statement released from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said, "Climate change is *likely* to have wide-ranging and mostly adverse impacts on human health, with significant loss of life." As temperatures increase towards the poles, similar to farmland, insects and other pests migrate towards Earth's poles. These insects and pests *could* be allowed to migrate up to 550 Km or 550 miles. Some insects carry diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. Thus, an increase in these particular insects and pests closer to the poles results in an increase in these diseases. This *could* lead to 50 to 80 million additional cases of Malaria annually, a 10-15% increase. "Malaria and dengue fever are already beginning to spread pole wards", said Jane Lubchenco, past president of American Association for the advancement of science. (http://www.epa.gov/oppeoeel/globalwa...lth/index.html) Physician Paul Epstein, of Harvard's School of Public Health, says "Climate change is already a factor in terms of the distributions of malaria, dengue fever, and cholera." (www.aloha.net~jhanson/page70.htm)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Damn that photosynthesis!


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 8, 2009)

Annie said:


> Damn that photosynthesis!



Obama inherited that one too...


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 8, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> So, when the polar caps do finally all melt away and entire islands disappear from the oceans, let's all remember the stolen e-mails.


Have to admire the strength of their faith.


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 8, 2009)

Yup - the goal posts are being changed.

Climate changed is morphing into weather extremes you see...if it gets hot it's climate change.  If it gets cold - climate change. Then we will add the health issue studies that are sure to come down the pike very soon.

$$Trillions are banking on this scheme, and it's gonna take more than some emails to stop it...


----------



## Oddball (Dec 8, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Yup - the goal posts are being changed.
> 
> Climate changed is morphing into weather extremes you see...if it gets hot it's climate change.  If it gets cold - climate change. Then we will add the health issue studies that are sure to come down the pike very soon.
> 
> $$Trillions are banking on this scheme, and it's gonna take more than some emails to stop it...



A complete list of things caused by global warming


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 8, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Yup - the goal posts are being changed.
> 
> Climate changed is morphing into weather extremes you see...if it gets hot it's climate change.  If it gets cold - climate change. Then we will add the health issue studies that are sure to come down the pike very soon.
> 
> $$Trillions are banking on this scheme, and it's gonna take more than some emails to stop it...


Hell... Goal posts nothing, we're changing sports.  Now we can dither forever and people will still cheer.  American football is too victory oriented.  Now we can have a sport that people can be happy with a 0-0 tie.

GOOOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 8, 2009)

Here is another one...



> The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.
> 
> The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.
> 
> *The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" &#8211; but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark &#8211; has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week*.



Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

I guess the conference is off to a great start. Day 1 and the* real agenda *items are beginning to be exposed. Money and control.

Freaking amazing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 8, 2009)

Ame®icano;1791569 said:
			
		

> Here is another one...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, using fake science to gain power...never saw that coming


----------



## Oddball (Dec 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1791569 said:
			
		

> Here is another one...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow....Rich socialists kicking out the bottom rungs of the ladder of economic development for poorer nations, while exempting themselves from those onerous regulations?!?

Never saw that coming!


----------



## Zander (Dec 9, 2009)

Dude said:


> Ame®icano;1791569 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They just want to help!!!


----------



## Jay Canuck (Dec 9, 2009)

This just keeps getting worse for the conspiracy deniers by the minute - if the hackers changed the or altered the e-mail then more charges against them will be on the way!

_East Anglia University Climate Change Email Controversy - ClimateGate Stolen Email and Global Warming - Popular Mechanics


There seem to be some evidence that the Emails were altered


" Furthermore, though CRU has confirmed that most of the e-mails are genuine, some of them could have been forged or altered"_


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 9, 2009)

BWAHAHAHAHA   

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGDnMPeX1YY&feature=channel[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 9, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> This just keeps getting worse for the conspiracy deniers by the minute - if the hackers changed the or altered the e-mail then more charges against them will be on the way!
> 
> _East Anglia University Climate Change Email Controversy - ClimateGate Stolen Email and Global Warming - Popular Mechanics
> 
> ...



Jay could have had gay sex on crack with Obama in the back of the Presidential limo


----------



## Annie (Dec 9, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> This just keeps getting worse for the conspiracy deniers by the minute - if the hackers changed the or altered the e-mail then more charges against them will be on the way!
> 
> _East Anglia University Climate Change Email Controversy - ClimateGate Stolen Email and Global Warming - Popular Mechanics
> 
> ...



There is nothing in that article that states or implies that the emails were forged or altered. In fact, both CRU and the university have said they all appear to be genuine.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 9, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> This just keeps getting worse for the conspiracy deniers by the minute - if the hackers changed the or altered the e-mail then more charges against them will be on the way!
> 
> _East Anglia University Climate Change Email Controversy - ClimateGate Stolen Email and Global Warming - Popular Mechanics
> 
> ...



ZOMG!!! Tell Phil Jones to unresign!!!!


----------



## Zander (Dec 9, 2009)

Annie said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > This just keeps getting worse for the conspiracy deniers by the minute - if the hackers changed the or altered the e-mail then more charges against them will be on the way!
> ...


AGW Cult members are hard to convince....

When the world refuses to act upon the draconian schemes that the AGW Cultists seek, and then when the world doesn't end, then they might believe it. 

Until then you are wasting bandwidth!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 9, 2009)

Zander said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



No they won't believe it Zander, but I give you credit for giving them that much credit .

Now if the world turns into a big ball of fire then aren't i the idiot, but until then I dont feel bad about not believing in junk science.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Dec 9, 2009)

yeah I know....it's much easier to swallow that a vast majority of the worlds scientists are all in on a mass conspiracy that if revealed would ruin them and their lifetime work.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 9, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> yeah I know....it's much easier to swallow that a vast majority of the worlds scientists are all in on a mass conspiracy that if revealed would ruin them and their lifetime work.



I hope they aren't.   I really hope it was just these few and that other data these scientists weren't involved with is legit.

If not we have wasted billions on a non-existent situation already and stand to waste trillions on it in the near future.


That being said I'm still a firm believer in reducing pollution and the consumption of foreign oil.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 9, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> yeah I know....it's much easier to swallow that a vast majority of the worlds scientists are all in on a mass conspiracy that if revealed would ruin them and their lifetime work.


Where has anyone even intimated that this is a mass conspiracy?

What this has been from the outset is a few of the inner circle fudging and faking the evidence, that subsequent honest scientists have based their further work upon.

Like I said in another thread, Typhoid Mary wasn't part of any conspiracy either.


----------



## chanel (Dec 9, 2009)

What they should do is hire those crack detectives from the Acorn Internal Investigation Team on the case. Lol


----------



## Zander (Dec 9, 2009)

Dude said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > yeah I know....it's much easier to swallow that a vast majority of the worlds scientists are all in on a mass conspiracy that if revealed would ruin them and their lifetime work.
> ...



Exactly!

 It is very typical for CULT members to try and re-frame facts that challenge their  twisted view of reality. Slowly, with a lot of work, and a few capitulations by the ringleaders, the CULT members can be de-programmed.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 9, 2009)

Dude said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > yeah I know....it's much easier to swallow that a vast majority of the worlds scientists are all in on a mass conspiracy that if revealed would ruin them and their lifetime work.
> ...


I find that an interesting choice of likeness to Warmists.  The more I think of it though, it's not totally accurate.  After all, Typhoid Mary was a lone woman who a lone health official in NYC discovered to be the source of a Typhoid outbreak that just had no other commonalities.  It was through his work, and (unfortunately) constant hounding of Mary that discovered that some people can become hosts and yet not have any symptoms of the disease.  A hellish 'midas touch'.

And Typhoid Mary fought him hard too.  Whenever he popped up in her life, she'd threaten the health official and then disappear.  She escaped her imprisonment multiple times, and each time was followed by yet another dead and dying family.  For a woman trained in service to families in 'Victorian Era' New York, this was an incredible blow to her ego.  How can something she was good at be killing people.

Even after she was finally tested positive for the disease as a carrier, she refused to believe it till her dying day.

So the analogy is interesting in that you have people in denial that they are killing others from the meme they carry... but that's about as far as it goes.

Now the real question is, do we need to take such extremes of philosophical quarantine to prevent the diseased meme from spreading more  These people are obviously afflicted with 'fact-resistant' strains.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 9, 2009)

And for your further reading and research pleasure here's a link to the *Global Environment Facility*.

Just take a look who are the "partners":



> United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
> United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
> World Bank
> African Development Bank (AFDB)
> ...


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 9, 2009)

Here is the about who leaked the "Danish Text" and why, one thing for sure there is a lot at stake for everyone.



> If negotiators reach an accord at the climate talks in Copenhagen it will entail profound shifts in energy production, dislocations in how and where people live, sweeping changes in agriculture and forestry and the creation of complex new markets in global warming pollution credits.
> 
> The short answer is trillions of dollars over the next few decades. It is a significant sum but a relatively small fraction of the worlds total economic output. In energy infrastructure alone, the transformational ambitions that delegates to the United Nations climate change conference are expected to set in the coming days will cost more than $10 trillion in additional investment from 2010 to 2030, according to a new estimate from the International Energy Agency.



Climate Deal Likely to Bear Big Price Tag 

From "danish text":



> Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.



This must be extrapolated from the 2050 figures, and done so in the worst possible light. Kinda bizarre.


----------



## Annie (Dec 9, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> yeah I know....it's much easier to swallow that a vast majority of the worlds scientists are all in on a mass conspiracy that if revealed would ruin them and their lifetime work.



Jay, what your peanut brain is failing to register is that false data, provided by 'reputable' scientists, have been accepted by really reputable scientists, thus compounding the problems with false science. That is the issue with the emails.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 9, 2009)

First demands are in...



> African experts on climate change and high-level representatives of AU member states have recommended *Africa demand between 67 billion and 200 billion US dollars annually in compensation*.



Africa demands compensation for ruining its climate


----------



## Annie (Dec 9, 2009)

From a former 'warmer' that is disgusted by what has come to be:


"Science" responds to Climategate - Clive Crook



> "Science" responds to Climategate
> 
> 08 Dec 2009 04:29 pm
> The response of the climate-science establishment to Climategate has been disappointing if predictable. The guild mentality has come to the fore. Campaigns are under way to defend the integrity of science from a scurrilous smear campaign. The message is simple: you are either with us or you are a barbarian.
> ...


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 9, 2009)

Annie said:


> From a former 'warmer' that is disgusted by what has come to be:
> 
> 
> "Science" responds to Climategate - Clive Crook
> ...





Reputable scientists are disgusted and dismayed by this event - even if the mainstream media, which makes millions and millions each year in Go-Green advertising, has done its damnable best to sweep these events under the carpet.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 10, 2009)

I'll counter with a vague "the mainstream media, which sells advertising time to big oil companies is conveniently hiding the truth!"


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 10, 2009)

They simply don't care... 



> U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Tuesday that emails leaked from a British university have done nothing to undermine the United Nations' view that climate change is accelerating due to humans.



Human role in climate change not in doubt

Quick, give all of your money to the UN...


----------



## The T (Dec 10, 2009)

For those trying to keep up with all of this?

*CLIMATEGATE DEPOT <LINK*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 10, 2009)

Will deprogramming Warmers be included in ObamaCare?


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 10, 2009)




----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 10, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Will deprogramming Warmers be included in ObamaCare?



Only if deprogramming gays into straight is included too...


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 10, 2009)

Toronado3800 said:


> I'll counter with a vague "the mainstream media, which sells advertising time to big oil companies is conveniently hiding the truth!"



Those big oil companies are spending millions in Go-Green adveritising too.

Open your eyes pard...


----------



## concept (Dec 10, 2009)

Scientist Pressured into Global Warmering Ass Kissing Contest.

FOXNews.com - Scientists Rally to Defend Global Warming




These clowns will stop at notihng and the LSM has lost all credibility.


----------



## The T (Dec 10, 2009)

concept said:


> Scientist Pressured into Global Warmering Ass Kissing Contest.
> 
> FOXNews.com - Scientists Rally to Defend Global Warming
> 
> ...


 
LOL!

Notice what GRAPH the DIPSTICK (Or is that Hockey Stick), is holding up?

[Been DEBUNKED]


----------



## The T (Dec 10, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll counter with a vague "the mainstream media, which sells advertising time to big oil companies is conveniently hiding the truth!"
> ...


 

Nah. They HATE Corporations so badly...they're _blinded..._


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 10, 2009)

The T said:


> concept said:
> 
> 
> > Scientist Pressured into Global Warmering Ass Kissing Contest.
> ...




It is amazing how these flat earth warmers are just repeating the same falsehoods over and over and over again.

Al Gore gets to say how the emails are ten years old????  And the media doesn't call him out on it?  Or ask how he was so wrong regarding the earth core temps???  Or why he flies around in a private jet and an SUV entourage???  Or why his home uses several times more power than a typical home???  Or why he cancelled Copenhagen???

Flat earth warmers...


----------



## The T (Dec 10, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > concept said:
> ...


 

Flat Earth Elitist _Poseurs_


----------



## Annie (Dec 11, 2009)

What could they be afraid of? 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 11, 2009)

Annie said:


> What could they be afraid of?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded




AMAZING VIDEO - THANK YOU VERY MUCH.    

If the science was in fact so settled, the supporters of man made global warming theory would not engage in such obvious attempts at avoidance.

This video is worthy of its own thread.  It clearly paints a picture of "scientists" unwilling or unable to answer basic questions regarding the climategate emails and the implications containted therein - and the UN security goon swoops in to ensure no further such questions are posed.

People - please open you eyes to the aggressive militant nature of these flat earth warmers.  This is not science - this is global collectivism...


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 11, 2009)

Someone please tell the Polar Caps to STOP MELTING.  This climate warming stuff is a hoax!


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 11, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> Someone please tell the Polar Caps to STOP MELTING.  This climate warming stuff is a hoax!



The polar caps are not melting.  The Arctic cap experienced some warming/melting though that appears to now be reversing.  The much larger and more important Antarctic cap has been expanding for some time - namely the larger eastern portion.

Ignorance can be dangerous...


----------



## Zander (Dec 11, 2009)

Annie said:


> What could they be afraid of?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded



Did you notice how angry he was when confronted?  I am not surprised. Cult members cling to their brainwashing until they are properly deprogrammed. It's a long hard road to realize you've been duped.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2009)

Annie said:


> What could they be afraid of?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded



I thought the science was settled, what the fuck?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 11, 2009)

Zander said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > What could they be afraid of?
> ...


The meltdown is telling.

I wonder how long before Michael Mann gets on the PA, summoning everyone to the pavilion.


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...




Indeed - the fanatism of Jones has found root in the environmental movement...


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClVvA466iFg[/ame]


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 12, 2009)

> A story emerging out of Britain suggests "follow the money" may explain the enthusiasm of the United Nations to pursue caps on carbon emissions, despite doubts surfacing in the scientific community about the validity of the underlying global warming hypothesis.



U.N. climate chief cashes in on carbon


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 12, 2009)




----------



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

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg[/ame]


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 13, 2009)

I heard Al Gore wrote a peom.  Thought I'd return the favor:

Al Gore became a warmer whore
Long long before
A million degrees
He thought the core.

Reduce your carbon footprint
If we ever hope to dent
Melting the ice caps
And money for me print.

Cap and trade Gore does rave
The planet we must save
Help them grow clean industry
In places they still live in a cave.

Scientists who have tricked the data
What diference does that matta
We know our science is all junk
Just look at our results Mista!

Many times Al Gore must have thought
How long can I go and not get caught
But still the money I can rake
Due to what governments have bought.

Soon Al Gore will be just a joke
Many will want to take a poke
What will he do and say
He already invests in coke.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 13, 2009)

"A growing menace lurks in the seas"
by Michael Carey
_associated press_

"As ocean waters grow warmer, massive swarms of jellyfish are invading new areas - with potentially disasterous consequences"

Those of you who wish to remain ignorant will ignore this and the many, many other authorative articles/studies on the dangers of cllmate change.  Enjoy your bliss while it lasts.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

None of that proves causality, pisswillie...Speaking of ignorant.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> "A growing menace lurks in the seas"
> by Michael Carey
> _associated press_
> 
> ...


_Post hoc ergo propter hoc_.

Idiot.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> None of that proves causality, pisswillie...Speaking of ignorant.



Proves?  Who suggested proof?  It's simply one more piece of a puzzle.  A piece that helps move a hypothesis forward.  Unlike denial and magical thinking, it's a method used to understand the world around us.  I'm getting sleepy, very sleepy...damn, you're good - boring really put me under.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

It's a big fat nothing, other than fodder for warmists to illogically claim that somehow man is to blame.

The "magical thinking" retort is non sequitur and irrelevant....But not unexpected from someone whose limit of "thinking" is the strawman argument.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 13, 2009)

I'm getting sleepier and sleepier...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > None of that proves causality, pisswillie...Speaking of ignorant.
> ...


Only to the illogical does a _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ 'point' do anything of the sort.

Dilettantes.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > "A growing menace lurks in the seas"
> ...



No, not a conclusion, evidence offered.  Simple as that.  No less simple than an ad hominem attack.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


Evidence of a correlation, thus _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ which does nothing to support a hypothesis.

Idiot.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Would the claim that the policies of Bush&Co prevented another terrorist attack be considered a logical fallacy?


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


When all else fails upstairs, deflect from the topic?


----------



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

sm missed the poit...


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



No, it's quite on point.  Now your's is the red herring.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


GWB and Muslim terrorism is related to the topic of the climate scandal.  

You are nuts.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


Yes it would, ergo your claim is also fallacious.

Case closed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

Back to the warmers.  Link below ot an interesting article.  I truly relate to the frustration the scientists have for the whacko anti-global warming people.  The E-mails of certain climate scientists reveal a screening data from opponents and actually talked about hiding evidence  --  but the emails simply do not support accusations that global-warming science is a fake or a hoax.  

http://www.freep.com/article/200912...-show-science-not-faked-but-not-pretty-either


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


  He's not too bright.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Back to the warmers.  Link below ot an interesting article.  I truly relate to the frustration the scientists have for the whacko anti-global warming people.  The E-mails of certain climate scientists reveal a screening data from opponents and actually talked about hiding evidence  --  but the emails simply do not support accusations that global-warming science is a fake or a hoax.
> 
> http://www.freep.com/article/200912...-show-science-not-faked-but-not-pretty-either


Right...The inner circle of the warmist cult filtering out and hiding contradictory evidence, and advising colleagues on how to do so themselves, is _*no evidence whatsoever*_ of a hoax.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude old buddy, you gave your opinon but offered nothing of relevance.  Nothing new there.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

You wouldn't know substance if it bit you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

Yes, you really know how to discuss a topic, Dude old buddy.  Man-made global warming is a fact, not a hypothesis or a theory.  The question that is important is, "Is it significant?"  And you can't even discuss that intelligently.  I remember the giggles you gave us all when you were talking about oil, so I am not surprised.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Saying it's a fact doesn't make it so. And it _*still*_ remains a mere hypothesis/theory, your protestations to the contrary nonwithstanding.

If we were talking about 7-10 people unassociated with the inner circle of the IPCC, you might have a point. But we aren't so you don't.


----------



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

Si modo said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Both claims are a-->c and assume one is smart enough to figure out B


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1804495 said:
			
		

> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


And one who _claims_ to recognize B would not even try A.  Yet Wry did.  He's not too bright, so he attempted deflection.

Case closed, AGAIN.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Maybe (for not ignoring you; but that aside, you're not too bright dwiddle if you cannot see the connection).


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

The only connection is the false logic of the premise, which you invoked to begin with.

Then, you made a feeble atttempt at a "gotcha" moment and failed at that too....Fuckin' pisswillie.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Bright enough not to make a claim, only to suggest evidence towards a working hypothesis.  Now, those who deny that man has had an impact on the environment, and that impact maybe be causing long term changes to sea and air temperatures, have no evidence to support their claim.  
But, thanks for sharing dude and Si Mongo - say, weren't you two character actors with parts in Blazing Saddles?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

wrycatcher, remember that dude does not understand logic and is a hack anyway for the loonies.  si modo is bright enough, but has picked the wrong side.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Bright enough not to make a claim, only to suggest evidence towards a working hypothesis.  *Now, those who deny that man has had an impact on the environment, and that impact maybe be causing long term changes to sea and air temperatures, have no evidence to support their claim. *
> But, thanks for sharing dude and Si Mongo - say, weren't you two character actors with parts in Blazing Saddles?


We in fact have plenty of evidence, in that those who have been gathering and compiling the "evidence" have faked some of it and either buried or destroyed contravening evidence. Moreover, speaking of flawed logic, saying that man has an impact provodes _*zero*_ evidence, in and of itself, that the effect is what you claim it to be.

But all of that is a deflection and distraction from your invocation of flawed logic in the first place.

Try harder.


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 13, 2009)

So Lush Rimbaugh is salivating over these e-mails and calling everyone a liar, except himself of course.  I would personally know the truth.  It is hard to believe that thousands of scientist, worldwide, have colluded and fabicated all the global warming scare.  But I would like to know the truth.  There should be an investigation.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bright enough not to make a claim, only to suggest evidence towards a working hypothesis.  *Now, those who deny that man has had an impact on the environment, and that impact maybe be causing long term changes to sea and air temperatures, have no evidence to support their claim. *
> ...



Okay, how about this.  Go to your garage, bring with you a garden hose and put one end in the tailpipe of your car, and the other end in a rear window.  Then roll all the windows in the car up, and the rear one as high as possible, filling any gaps with towels.
Next, close the garage door with your remote, start the car, and turn on Rush Limbaugh.
As you become sleepy, simply think of the words of your teacher, think to yourself, "I'm getting sleepy, very sleepy...
Oh, but before you do this, list all of the reasons you believe man has had no impact on our planet.  But do so before you try the experiment.


----------



## driveby (Dec 13, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, you really know how to discuss a topic, Dude old buddy.  Man-made global warming is a fact, not a hypothesis or a theory.  The question that is important is, "Is it significant?"  And you can't even discuss that intelligently.  I remember the giggles you gave us all when you were talking about oil, so I am not surprised.




MMGW is a scientific theory or opinion that is not universally accepted, especially after the recent email discoveries, that is a fact ....


----------



## Maple (Dec 13, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> So Lush Rimbaugh is salivating over these e-mails and calling everyone a liar, except himself of course.  I would personally know the truth.  It is hard to believe that thousands of scientist, worldwide, have colluded and fabicated all the global warming scare.  But I would like to know the truth.  There should be an investigation.



I want to know the truth too, no one is denying that the climate has changed, but is it a natural weather pattern or one caused by man's activities.  That's the question, the last 11 years the temperature has cooled, yet CO2 has risen. There needs to be an answer to that scenario and unless they can give an answer, they don't have one. There is nothing wrong with saying, " We don't know," and go back to the drawing board to find out.

Man, does not always have the answer to everything.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bright enough not to make a claim, only to suggest evidence towards a working hypothesis.  *Now, those who deny that man has had an impact on the environment, and that impact maybe be causing long term changes to sea and air temperatures, have no evidence to support their claim. *
> ...



No.  You don't.  That's the point.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


Flawed logic on top of flawed logic doesn't equal sound logic....And CO is not CO2.

Also, to repeat, just because it can be said that man has an impact, _*does not*_ automatically mean that the worst-case scenario dreamed up by moonbats like you and Joke is the reality.

But feel free to keep flailing away, pisswillie....Maybe you'll blunder into some logic, on the law of averages alone.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> No.  You don't.  That's the point.


WOWIE!!...Skewered again by another one of your fact and substance based posts!! 

Drip.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 13, 2009)

Maple said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > So Lush Rimbaugh is salivating over these e-mails and calling everyone a liar, except himself of course.  I would personally know the truth.  It is hard to believe that thousands of scientist, worldwide, have colluded and fabicated all the global warming scare.  But I would like to know the truth.  There should be an investigation.
> ...



Dude does (or believes so).  Note his insight above:  "CO is not CO2".  Brilliant, don't ya think?
Check your data, global temperatures have risen.


----------



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

Dude said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bright enough not to make a claim, only to suggest evidence towards a working hypothesis.  *Now, those who deny that man has had an impact on the environment, and that impact maybe be causing long term changes to sea and air temperatures, have no evidence to support their claim. *
> ...


present it. TF00t makes a good case to the contrary

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg[/ame]


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


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



You might want to heed your own advice when it comes to checking your data.  I would recommend getting ALL of it, though, not just the junk that made it past the suppression-screeing process.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 13, 2009)

Liability said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...



Post a link which contradicts what I've read.  I'll mea culpa if I'm wrong.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

You're self-contradicting, pisswillie.....The only person who doesn't see it is you.


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



You want PROOF that contradicts what you've READ even though we all KNOW that the DATA has been suppressed and fudged BY DESIGN?  

No thanks.

Give ME proof that there is any reasonable basis to accept the DATA upon which YOU rely!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No.  You don't.  That's the point.
> ...



Oh, you have the g-germ, Dude?  Sad.  Armor up for safety's sake, sonny.  Or stay faithful to one person.  In the mean time, you have offered nothing of consequence on global warming.  No "facts" exist from the warmers to indicate they have any proof positive.

Thus, I can honestly say that, "No, you don't."


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

The AP review blows your myth out of the water, L-boy.  You and the Dude have offered nothing relevant.  Now do so, or just move along.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

The AP?!?!???


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


"I got nothing" will get you out of these jams much easier, than your lame attempts at trying to put the onus back onto me, Joke.


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The AP review blows your myth out of the water, L-boy.  You and the Dude have offered nothing relevant.  Now do so, or just move along.



The AP has every smarmy liberal-agenda reason to engage further in the cover-up.

Idiots like YOU might put stock in the self-serving crap now spewed by the AP, but that's just because you are an idiot.

Reasonable people, Jokey, reject their self-serving fraudulent "investigation," "analysis" and "conclusion."

Oh, and feel obligated to go fuck yourself, Jokey.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

You wierdo warmers are the ones who have made the claim.  It has been investigated and effectively rebutted.  Almost all of the scientific community (common knowledge) state your beliefs are silly.  But we already knew that, didn't we?


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> You wierdo warmers are the ones who have made the claim.  It has been investigated and effectively rebutted.  Almost all of the scientific community (common knowledge) state your beliefs are silly.  But we already knew that, didn't we?



No.  Nobody "knows" any such thing.  SOME imbeciles, such as you, might believe it.  But that's a matter of no concern.  You are, afterall, retarded.


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> You wierdo warmers are the ones who have made the claim.  It has been investigated and effectively rebutted.  Almost all of the scientific community (common knowledge) state your beliefs are silly.  But we already knew that, didn't we?


___

Point of reference Starkey - you are the "warmer" in this discussion...


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

Man-made global warming became the substitute agenda for Leftists who had been discredited by Reaganomics and the collapse of communism.

The following quotes were first circulated by Ralph Voss, editor of the Unterrified Democrat published in Linn, Mo. They well explain the agenda. They provide much hard evidence about the hoax. (The links to sources are mine.)

Weve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy. Timothy Wirth, President of the U.N. Foundation and former Democratic U.S. senator from Colorado.    

No matter if the science of global warming is all phonyclimate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world. Christine Stewart, former Canadian minister of the environment who led that countrys delegation to Kyoto. 

A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States, John Holdren (Obamas Science Czar) wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.  See also John Holdren and the Anti-Growth Malthusians for interesting links and quotations.

The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We cant let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton professor and member of Environmental Defense Fund. 

Isnt the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isnt it our responsibility to bring that about? Maurice Strong, a native of Canada considered by some to be one of the leading environmentalists in the world. He is an official at the U.N. 

It doesnt matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true. Paul Watson, co-founder of the environmental group Greenpeace.    

My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world. Dave Foreman, U.S. environmentalist and co-founder of radical environmental group Earth First.
___


The American Conservative » Why the Global Warming Hoax?


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

Particularly troubling are the years from 1986-1998. In the 2007 version of the graph, the 1986 data was adjusted upwards by 0.4 degrees relative to the 1999 graph. In fact, every year except one from 1986-1998 was adjusted upwards, by an average of 0.2 degrees. If someone wanted to present a case for a lot of recent warming, adjusting data upwards would be an excellent way to do it.

*Looking at the NASA website, we can see that the person in charge of the temperature data is the eminent Dr. James Hansen - Al Gores science advisor and the worlds leading long-term advocate of global warming.*
____

Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? â¢ The Register


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 13, 2009)

Liability said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



National Oceanographic Data Center Home Page

Follow the link, if you don't find the source credible, please post one that you believe is credible.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 13, 2009)

So, what happens to the temperature if you increase the percentage of Greenhouse gasses in an enclosed environment?

What's the acceptable limit?


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

The temperature trend and trend distributions are robust to a wide variety of methods and input data from the BAS. The results would have no chance to survive the GHCN homogenization process.

Ok, so for the regulars, you know Ive maintained my calmness quite well. However, its not easy. Im sick to death of advocate scientists pretending there are only minimal problems in the temperature record. Currently the homogenized value added version of GHCN has a trend that is EIGHT times higher than actual for the ENTIRE ANTARCTIC CONTINENT. So I wonder if we can now, spend some of the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS on cleaning up the temperature record!!! Its no coincidence that AGW scientists arent demanding this be done in my opinion either.

*Which of these records is used in CRU, GISS, NOAA  hell if I know (nobody else does either because at least CRU wont say) but its pretty clear none of this data should be used in this condition.*

Its time the GOOD scientists demand GOOD TEMPERATURE DATA. Its time the world embarked on a real project for gathering the true warming data rather than this kludged mess. Its past time that the whole thing was done in an open and transparent way. The whole experience with GHCN this weekend felt like looking through a box of old socks.


GHCN Antarctic, 8X Actual Trend &#8211; Uses Single Warmest Station « the Air Vent


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

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:

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

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.

*Look in the mirror, fools. Its right there in the CRU emails:*

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

Kevin, Gavin, Mike,

Its Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. Its in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth


*Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer*
[7]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20005-4076
202-641-9454



*When a reporter is part of an email thread where one of the respondents says:*

On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:

Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??.if
it is not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.


Jim

It gives the appearance that he is not interested in reporting the other side of the story, especially when he is the instigator of the email thread by saying:

Marc Morano is hyping wildly. Its in a legit journal. Whatchya think?

So, how then would the AP trust Seth Borenstein to do an exhaustive inquiry when he is part of the issue?

Perhaps further FOIA documents will tell us just how cozy Mr. Borenstein is with the people he reports on.


*Now consider what other members of the media people write about him. From the Tacoma News-Tribune*

_*Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has a terrible reputation as a runaway alarmist. Even global warming enthusiasts and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are embarrassed by his over-the-top prognostications of doom and selective use of data to support his fading dream that mankind can actually control climate.*_

____


And on and on and on and on folks - the AP reporter implicated in some of the climategate emails is among those AP folks to claim - "Nothing to see here".

It's the Acorn "investigation" all over again...


AP&#8217;s Seth Borenstein is just too damn cozy with the people he covers &#8211; time for AP to do something about it « Watts Up With That?


----------



## 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:
> 
> ...



,,,


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Toronado3800 said:


> So, what happens to the temperature if you increase the percentage of Greenhouse gasses in an enclosed environment?
> 
> What's the acceptable limit?


What's the "perfect" temperture for the planet?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 13, 2009)

> So, what happens to the temperature if you increase the percentage of Greenhouse gasses in an enclosed environment?
> 
> What's the acceptable limit?



Sinatra, I find your posts interesting.  I don't know if its a good use of our time to throw links of misguided scientists vs. scientists for hire by oil companies at eachbother.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Toronado3800 said:


> > So, what happens to the temperature if you increase the percentage of Greenhouse gasses in an enclosed environment?
> >
> > What's the acceptable limit?
> 
> ...


How _*dare*_ energy producers hire their own scientists, to keep a bunch of hacks perpetrating a hoax from destroying their businesses!!

Oh, the scandal!


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 13, 2009)

> What's the "perfect" temperture for the planet?



Easy, whatever it would be w/o man's interference.  

There is a sci-fi / outside type argument of "well what do we do if Earth is going to get 20 degrees warmer"  or "what if Earth is going to get 20 degrees cooler, should be pump greenhouse gasses".  

Outside of the planet becoming inhabitable I'm willing to ride out the natural warming and cooling trends.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 13, 2009)

> How dare energy producers hire their own scientists, to keep a bunch of hacks perpetrating a hoax from destroying their businesses!!
> 
> Oh, the scandal!


Oh I know, next thing you know some folk who have their quarterly report of stock prices to protect will hire a scientist who will say cigarettes are safe!

Suppose we're back to the old transparency issue.  And in this case I do agree there should be more.


----------



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

Dude said:


> The AP?!?!???



so... you're not going to present evidence of your claims?


I thought as much


----------



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

Liability said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The AP review blows your myth out of the water, L-boy.  You and the Dude have offered nothing relevant.  Now do so, or just move along.
> ...




You sound like Terral in a 9/11 thread


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805315 said:
			
		

> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > The AP?!?!???
> ...



Of course he can't.  He truly knows very little, and has trouble enough even communicating that.  Don't expect Dude offer you anything of worth.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805315 said:
			
		

> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > The AP?!?!???
> ...


What evidence other than capos vouching for the mob boss do you need?

For someones who hates religion, you sure do cling to this one like you're under the thumb of St. Peter, Buckwheat.


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805318 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Why?  Because I took note of the fact that the AP (a liberal organization with a long history of distorting news to suit the needs of the liberal Democrat Parody) has no credibility?

Schmuck.  Did you READ the crap article they wrote about their own "investigation?"  

If you AREN'T laughing at it then YOU are the delusional one.


----------



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

Sinatra, quoting the founder of Greenpeace regarding global warming is like quoting David Duke regarding race relations. Noone takes those people seriously. How about using data and evidence instead of manuscripts of your favorite soundbytes?


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> *What evidence other than capos vouching for the mob boss do you need?*
> 
> For someones who hates religion, you sure do cling to this one like you're under the thumb of St. Peter, Buckwheat.



Replace Global Warming with 9/11 and this would be in the Conspiracy Theory Forum.


----------



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

Toronado3800 said:


> So, what happens to the temperature if you increase the percentage of Greenhouse gasses in an enclosed environment?



nothing, if it's a box in a freezer.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Next we're going to be told that Bernie Madoff should be let out of prison, because Ivan Boesky looked over his books and found them all in order.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

Liability and Dude are indeed the political equivalents of Terral and Eots.

All of them are simply loony.


----------



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

Dude said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > > So, what happens to the temperature if you increase the percentage of Greenhouse gasses in an enclosed environment?
> ...


Yet anyone on the other side is slandered  for being 'partisan'

nice double-standard


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> Next we're going to be told that Bernie Madoff should be let out of prison, because Ivan Boesky looked over his books and found them all in order.



Except Bernie Madoff is not evidence that all investment firms or all Jews are crooks. However, you are applying that logic in this case by saying that the work of a few scientists discredit them all.

Don't you love when your analogies blow up in your face?


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805342 said:
			
		

> Sinatra, quoting the founder of Greenpeace regarding global warming is like quoting David Duke regarding race relations. Noone takes those people seriously. How about using data and evidence instead of manuscripts of your favorite soundbytes?



Again with the "data" stuff?

LOL.

Show me the data that can now be properly relied upon.

How do YOU know which data has been altered [or might be PROPERLY altered by virtue of the release of the suppressed (actual) data]?

I'll help you out with the first couple of tough questions.  You DON'T know.


----------



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

Dude said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805315 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I presented the arguments and evidence that the e-mails reveal no systematic fraud of the sort you allege.

Since you continue to refuse to address the arguments, it can only mean you know you're lying and you can't refute TF00t's case.


----------



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

Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > *What evidence other than capos vouching for the mob boss do you need?*
> ...





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dogbert again.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Next we're going to be told that Bernie Madoff should be let out of prison, because Ivan Boesky looked over his books and found them all in order.
> ...


No I'm not, you dishonest little fuck....And you know it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 13, 2009)

The T said:


> concept said:
> 
> 
> > Scientist Pressured into Global Warmering Ass Kissing Contest.
> ...


And if you further notice, since 2000, it's going down even there.  Whoops-i-daisy!


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> No I'm not, you dishonest little fuck....And you know it.



Really now, explain it to me then how it's different. Instead of crying with a neg rep. What's wrong Dude? Don't like it when your bullshit is questioned?


----------



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

Liability said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805342 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




there you have it

the data doesn't matter

it's all just a eco-leftist conspiracy controlled by the Jews and the NWO to cover up the warming earth and the explosives Saddam Hussein planted in the Twin Towers on 9/11- ior whatever fucking conspiracy you prefer

Show me the data that can now be properly relied upon.


> How do YOU know which data has been altered [or might be PROPERLY altered by virtue of the release of the suppressed (actual) data]?



Didn't Terral say the exact same thing about the 9/11 Commission Report? You allege fakery; prove it. I have twice posted TF00t's case refuting the allegations fbradcast all over Fox news.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude, that is exactly what you are inferring.  Be honest, huh?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > No I'm not, you dishonest little fuck....And you know it.
> ...


I'm not saying anything on your rep page that I won't say to your goddamn lying punk face, you goddamn lying fucking punk.

Keep mischaracterizing what I've been saying about this for weeks, and you'll get more of the same, asshole.


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805383 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805342 said:
> ...



Did you actually *read* the AP account of how they "determined" that the e-mail scandal had no impact on the underlying scientific validity of the AGW theory and "science?"

It appears you did not.

Until you do, your commentary is of no import.

Get back to us when you've done your homework and have at least some actual basis to know what you pretend to be talking about.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> I'm not saying anything on your rep page that I wont say to your goddamn lying punk face, you goddamn lying fucking punk.
> 
> *Keep mischaracterizing what I've been saying about this for weeks, and you'll get more of the same, asshole*.



Ohh, threatening a rep war are we? At the very least threats are so unbecoming of you Dude. 

Well Mr. Big Bad Wolf, you can huff and puff and try to blow my questions away, but your pathetic attempt to stifle me will fail. This is one person who doesn't care about rep.

You still haven't explained to me how I'm wrong by the way.


----------



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

Dude said:


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



How bout simply addressing the case made by TF00t instead of attacking people who disagree with you?


----------



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

Liability said:


> It appears you did not.
> 
> Until you do, your commentary is of no import.
> 
> Get back to us when you've done your homework and have at least some actual basis to know what you pretend to be talking about.



*yawn*

I've posted TF00t's rebuttal twice. Go quote it and refute it if he's wrong.


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805412 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > It appears you did not.
> ...



ZZZZzzz.

So you didn't read the AP report itself, then.

'Nuff said.


----------



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

Liability said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805412 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It doesn't matter what the AP said. 

I have posted the arguments and you and Dude both refuse to address them. Thus, you both admit that TF00t is correct and you have been lying this entire time.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 13, 2009)

Ever notice how threads become 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a place where the conservative element all seem to agree with each other and give each other thanks?
For example, a thread commences with an attack on Obama, his wife or any aspect of his presidency, and the rest, much like a pack of jackals, joins the frey.
Notice the attacks are all (yep, ALL) emotional whose premises are based on half-truths, rumors, innuendo and lies? Of course the less infomed members of this group simply repeat the talking point of the day, knowing not the truth of what they write.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 13, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Hey dumb ass, that is carbon MONOXIDE coming out of the tailpipe, not carbon dioxide.  Gee, sit in the air with an ozone machine (three oxygen atoms together) it will kill you too.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > *What evidence other than capos vouching for the mob boss do you need?*
> ...


You're right.  Manmade Global Warming has just been PROVEN to be a conspiracy to defraud and enslave the world to nihilistic anti-human green religion.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Big Fitz said:


> You're right.  Manmade Global Warming has just been PROVEN to be a conspiracy to defraud and enslave the world to nihilistic anti-human green religion.



Reading Comprehension: You need it. 

Take a look and read what you just said. That is by definition batshit insane.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805407 said:
			
		

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


I attack punk assholes who blatantly mischaracterize my position, not those who merely disagree with me.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 13, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Ever notice how threads become
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


I notice how this is an attempt to divert discussion...

Then again, the amount of bullshit walking and talking like fact here is astounding too.

"Look at the emails."
"They're all lies."
"Here, check out the data."
"You liar!"
"Will you just take a..."
"SHUT UP!!! SHUT UP YOU RACIST FUCK!!!!! WORSHIP GAIA!!!! ALLL ARE WELCOME!!!! WORRRRSHIP GAIA OR DIEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!  DIE CONSERVOPIG!!!!!!!"
"You done?"
"HALIBURTON!"
"Would y...."
(head begins to rotate chair and desk levitate and turn upside down) "BBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHHH!!!!" (disolves into gibbering and foaming)


----------



## elvis (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > *What evidence other than capos vouching for the mob boss do you need?*
> ...



Incorrect.  The concept of Man-made global warming is unproven.  It's been proven the towers could not have collapsed from explosives.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


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




This... is why I don't go into the conspiracy forum.  I think we have a containment breech here.


----------



## elvis (Dec 13, 2009)

Big Fitz said:


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



That's funny, considering you converse with christophera all the time.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Incorrect.  The concept of Man-made global warming is unproven.  It's been proven the towers could not have collapsed from explosives.



Calling it a conspiracy at the lengths some are though is ridiculous however. That is the point I'm trying to get at.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

AP: We ignored the story when it first broke because it makes us look like assholes after a review of the emails we will continue to ignore the story because it makes us look like assholes


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Incorrect.  The concept of Man-made global warming is unproven.  It's been proven the towers could not have collapsed from explosives.
> ...


The emails, if genuine (as the CRU says they are) clearly indicate that there was among a few of the scientists.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Why are facts always so mean to Libruls?


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> I attack punk assholes who blatantly mischaracterize my position, not those who merely disagree with me.



Isn't that a wee bit of hypocrisy considering you mischaracterize many other scientists on the basis of a few?

You still haven't explained to me why I'm wrong or answered my questions.


----------



## jillian (Dec 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


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



whatever happened or didn't happen doesn't undermine the basic soundness of climate science.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

jillian said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...


That has yet to be determined.  And journalists claiming that is does not is insignificant.


----------



## concept (Dec 13, 2009)

jillian said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



what basic soundness?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > I attack punk assholes who blatantly mischaracterize my position, not those who merely disagree with me.
> ...



Hey, Thelma, Phil Jones resigned


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

Climate science!  LOLOLOL!!

What a phrase!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

Astrology is a sounder science than Climatology


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> And journalists claiming that is does not is insignificant.


This statement of yours reveals your mental insignificance, si modo.


----------



## jillian (Dec 13, 2009)

CF wouldn't know science if it bit him on the butt.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > I attack punk assholes who blatantly mischaracterize my position, not those who merely disagree with me.
> ...


Fuck you asshole.

Either go through my posts on this particular subject, as it relates to other scientists using cooked IPCC/CRU information, find out my exact and unchanged position on it, or shut your fucking punk ass mouth.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

jillian said:


> you wouldn't know science if it bit you on the butt.


Excuse me?


----------



## jillian (Dec 13, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Climate science!  LOLOLOL!!
> 
> What a phrase!



from someone who thinks ID is a valid scientific inquiry....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

No excuse for your determined ignorance, si modo.  That is all on you, as is Dude's.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

jillian said:


> CF wouldn't know science if it bit him on the butt.



Because you say so, Dearie.

You Warmers are so funny


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > I attack punk assholes who blatantly mischaracterize my position, not those who merely disagree with me.
> ...



Like you said on another thread @ 6:18, "the truth, as always, is in the numbers".  When the numbers are modified and adjusted by those wanting to make a point versus conduct science.  The truth as been wrung out of the numbers.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

jillian said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Climate science!  LOLOLOL!!
> ...



Find a grown up to read my posts on "Evolution" and find where I ever said that, and tell me another story about the Scary "Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster!!!"


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Either go through my posts on this particular subject as it relates to other scientists using cooked IPCC/CRU information, find out my exact and unchanged position on it, or shut your fucking punk ass mouth.



Since you already said it, you wouldn't have a problem answering a simple question with a simple answer.

I shouldn't need to wade through page after page of masturbation going on.

Though if there is one clear thing from your post, your anger issue is not a myth.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> Like you said on another thread @ 6:18, "the truth, as always, is in the numbers".  When the numbers are modified and adjusted by those wanting to make a point versus conduct science.  The truth as been wrung out of the numbers.



Again, judging the many by a few is not the way to go about things. There is no clear evidence that manmade Global Warming is a myth. All the deniers have right now is a bunch of speculation and jumping to conclusions on the basis that a small group of scientists being wrong means they all are.


----------



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

Dude said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805407 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you ever going to address the arguments I posted twice?


----------



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

elvis3577 said:


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



no, it hasn't. It's been shown that they *didn't* copllapse from explosives. Had explosives been used, they could have been brought down (although it would be unwise to skip the other steps usually taken in demolition)


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805621 said:
			
		

> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805407 said:
> ...



Of course Dude is going to do nothing of the sort.  He is not bright and can't argue.  He does yell and swear a lot, though.


----------



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

JakeStarkey said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > And journalists claiming that is does not is insignificant.
> ...



What journalists say doesn't change whether something is scientifically valid.

SM's right on that one


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Like you said on another thread @ 6:18, "the truth, as always, is in the numbers".  When the numbers are modified and adjusted by those wanting to make a point versus conduct science.  The truth as been wrung out of the numbers.
> ...


One must wonder how you conclude that the poster is saying ALL scientists are wrong.  Such emotional drivel you spew.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> One must wonder how you conclude that the poster is saying ALL scientists are wrong.  Such emotional drivel you spew.



I'm still wondering where I specified a single poster. Oh wait, I didn't. 

You and Dude would make a perfect couple. Two people too emotional for their good.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > One must wonder how you conclude that the poster is saying ALL scientists are wrong.  Such emotional drivel you spew.
> ...


Liar.  So far, it's Dude and saveliberty.





Dogbert said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Like you said on another thread @ 6:18, "the truth, as always, is in the numbers".  When the numbers are modified and adjusted by those wanting to make a point versus conduct science.  The truth as been wrung out of the numbers.
> ...





Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Next we're going to be told that Bernie Madoff should be let out of prison, because Ivan Boesky looked over his books and found them all in order.
> ...



Liar.

Your trying to weasel out when called on your emotional reactions is ugly, but normal for you.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 13, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805412 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > It appears you did not.
> ...



Please post the point and your counter here.  Would you like the answer in pill form or a suppository?  I doubt you will swallow the answer, so I'll make arrangements for the later.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

No, si modo, you are the one who is weaseling, as usual.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Liar.
> 
> Your trying to weasel out when called on your emotional reactions is ugly, but normal for you.



Except the point to Dude was on a different but related issue. And I never specified saveliberty. Saveliberty and I actually get on along on somewhat good terms as far as I can remember.

The only emotional reactions that are ugly right now is yours.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, si modo, you are the one who is weaseling, as usual.


Idiot.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

Very mature, si modo.  Please don't get hysterical here.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Liar.
> ...


Your relationships are insignificant to me.

Don't quote another and misrepresent their view, then say you didn't.  Christ, kid...it's in writing.

Think before spewing.  You clearly don't, you just react without thought.  Then when called on it, get so upset.  Suck it up and/or learn to think before spewing.  Weaseling is your forte - we get it.  You haven't shown any evidence of doing otherwise.  You have chosen your own path and are well-known for it.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 13, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Hey "dumb ass"?
Get with the program, open your mind and look at the entire text in context.


----------



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

Wry Catcher said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




Not exactly a scale representation of Earth, is that? Do you have anything other than obviously flawed anecdotes?


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Your relationships are insignificant to me.
> 
> Don't quote another and misrepresent their view, then say you didn't.  Christ, kid...it's in writing.
> 
> Think before spewing.  You clearly don't, you just react without thought.  Then when called on it, get so upset.  Suck it up and/or learn to think before spewing.  Weaseling is your forte - we get it.  You haven't shown any evidence of doing otherwise.  You have chosen your own path and are well-known for it.



The only two here who clearly has some issues and being upset is you and Dude. I'm not upset at all. 

You think you know me, but you really don't know. So while you may go thread from thread like a snake, thinking you "got me" while attacking me. You don't. 

And again, you continue your fetish with my age. Why? I don't know. If you're one of those Cougars, may I recommend finding some other prey?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


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



"Fuck you asshole"!  Wow, I bet you're one bad ass dude, dude.  I spent over 30 years dealing with foul mouthed 'tough' guys, and you know what, most were chicken shits.  
Based on my experience, you've got several tattoos, and if you and I met face to face, you'd piss your pants.
Have a nice day.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


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


I love your ironic comedy.


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


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



 Wry catcher must be everything he's ever dreamed of in a man!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2009)

I don't know if Dude is chicken.  I do know he is stupid.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Your relationships are insignificant to me.
> ...


Wow.  Just wow.  I would ignore such drivel, but it's really worth a highlight.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Wow.  Just wow.  I would ignore such drivel, but it's really worth a highlight.



But you know as well as I do that you won't ignore such drivel. As many other people know, you can't help but try and get the last point every time. Hell, I've counted some of the times where I've gone back and forth just to see if you would continue. And you do.

I'm thinking that's the scientist in you, that obsession to be right and to get the final word on the topic, therefore the conclusion.


----------



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

Wry Catcher said:


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



What does any of this internet tough guy bullshit have to do with the subject of the thread?


----------



## Si modo (Dec 13, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1805758 said:
			
		

> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


Keeping emotional trolls out of the discussion is not a given at USMB.


----------



## concept (Dec 13, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, you really know how to discuss a topic, Dude old buddy.  Man-made global warming is a fact, not a hypothesis or a theory.  The question that is important is, "Is it significant?"  And you can't even discuss that intelligently.  I remember the giggles you gave us all when you were talking about oil, so I am not surprised.



...says the dopey lib apologist? 

I don't think so.


----------



## concept (Dec 13, 2009)

It's beginning to look like the AGW apologists are no better than the truthers or birthers.  

What a bunch of conspiracy nutjobs.


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

concept said:


> It's beginning to look like the AGW apologists are no better than the truthers or birthers.
> 
> What a bunch of conspiracy nutjobs.[/QUOTE]
> ____
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

I've been saying that they're a bunch of cargo cultists, for years before Michael Crichton made the same observation.


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

dude said:


> i've been saying that they're a bunch of cargo cultists, for years before michael crichton made the same observation.



rip...


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 13, 2009)

I believe Michael Crichton is a poor example.  He's almost as annoying as Al Gore.  You had to read at least one of my posts about Crichton, Inhofe, and ice flow right?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 13, 2009)

Liability said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


 
Ah, the other tought guy.  What's your CV Dudette?


----------



## elvis (Dec 13, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



what's your problem, cum catcher?


----------



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

You three are high-larious


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 13, 2009)

sometimes it an amazingly angry discussion here.  

Think its a sign of the Rush Revolution in political debate.

On a side note I find folks are nicer in person where even if they kick some rump they take a shot or two.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

Toronado3800 said:


> I believe Michael Crichton is a poor example.  He's almost as annoying as Al Gore.  You had to read at least one of my posts about Crichton, Inhofe, and ice flow right?


Crichton was at least an MD...What are Gore's credentials in anything, besides having half an idea on which dinner jacket to wear?


----------



## elvis (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe Michael Crichton is a poor example.  He's almost as annoying as Al Gore.  You had to read at least one of my posts about Crichton, Inhofe, and ice flow right?
> ...



he won an academy award, which means he's about as qualified as Jane Fonda.


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 13, 2009)

Michael was a very bright man with a far greater grasp of science than Albert Gore.

He also had an natural distrust of all things Big Government...


----------



## Oddball (Dec 13, 2009)

999


----------



## elvis (Dec 13, 2009)

Dude said:


> 999



heroin recovery?


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> heroin recovery?



You're the 1,000 reply to this big giant blunder.

You get a brand new car!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIotIGFN2oc[/ame]


----------



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

Dude said:


> 999



why do you love Satan?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 13, 2009)

Michael Crichton misunderstood ice flow with ice growth, put it in a fiction book and Inhofe ran with the information.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 14, 2009)

And.......??

If Inhofe had a (D) by his name, would that make anything different?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 14, 2009)

Nah, Inhofe would still be a fool along with Al Gore and Crichton.

I'm not a "D".  Most superficially my views on the military, guns, and the death penalty prevent me from joining that faith.  For the life of me I don't understand how anyone joins a political party.  There are soo many issues few folks can be in agreement on all of them.  But I do find myself agreeing with the "D's" more often than the "R's" economically.


----------



## Liability (Dec 14, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



I never claimed I was (nor did I ever deny that I was) a tough guy, you fucking imbecile.

I have no idea what a "*tought guy*" is, however.

Why do you ask about my CV, jizz catcher?  It matters in the context of what we say here -- how exactly?


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 14, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Michael was a very bright man with a far greater grasp of science than Albert Gore.
> 
> He also had an natural distrust of all things Big Government...


Don't forget, he started out supporting AGW and that was the basis for him to start trying to write State of Fear.  But as he researched the topic the more bullshit he kept finding till he realized the whole thing was a scam, and hence "State of Fear" became an incredibly well researched anti-AGW book.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 14, 2009)

> But as he researched the topic the more bullshit he kept finding till he realized the whole thing was a scam, and hence *"State of Fear" became an incredibly well researched anti-AGW book*



I disagree.  If State of Fear was supposed to be well researched it failed or just demonstrated Crichton's limited understanding of issues such as ice flow.



> One might wonder why people like Tulaczyk do it. The motivation isnt fame; in fact, he and other glaciologists seem positively allergic to it. Tulaczyk himself had a bitter brush with fame thanks to Michael Crichtons best-selling conspiracy novel State of Fear. One of the novels characters, an agent named John Kenner, cites a paper published by Tulaczyk and a collaborator, Ian Joughin of the University of Washington in Seattle, to support his claim that climate change is pretty much bunk. Joughins and Tulaczyks paper, published in Science in 2002, documents an increase in ice mass for one region of the WAIS called the Ross Sea Sector. The fictional Kenner contends that this and other research indicate that Antarcticas ice is not actually melting.
> 
> Glaciologists say this is not the case: The Ross Sea Sector is gaining mass because one glacier, the Kamb Ice Stream, which periodically stops and starts, is currently in stop mode and therefore not dumping ice into the ocean. It was overblown and exaggerated, Tulaczyk says, in terms of proving something that it didnt prove. But Crichton was an effective publicist, and Joughin and Tulaczykwillingly or notwere taken up as heroes who disproved climate change.
> 
> Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) invited Crichton, based on the success of his novel, to testify before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works about the potential for bias in climate research, which he did on September 28, 2005. Several months later the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) honored Crichtons novel with its annual Journalism Award. It is fiction, the groups communications director, Larry Nation, was quoted as saying to The New York Times on February 9, 2006. But it has the absolute ring of truth. (Shortly afterward, AAPG changed the prizes name to the more vague Geo*sciences in the Media Award.) The studies cited in Crichtons book are still bandied about in chat rooms and climate blogs scattered across the Web. And a document released by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) in February 2007 lists some of those studies in a climate-science primer for members of the Senate Republican Policy Committee.


The Ground Zero of Climate Change | Arctic & Antarctic | DISCOVER Magazine


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 14, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...


...And a noble pizza prize.  Both should be revoked.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 14, 2009)

Toronado3800 said:


> > But as he researched the topic the more bullshit he kept finding till he realized the whole thing was a scam, and hence *"State of Fear" became an incredibly well researched anti-AGW book*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course you'd disagree.  It disagrees with the faith.

Pie Jesu domine >whack!< Donna ejus requiem. >whack!<


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 14, 2009)

"We are seeing the death of the Kyoto Protocol," said Djemouai Kamel of Algeria, the head of the 50-nation Africa group.

"Nothing is happening at this moment," Zia Hoque Mukta, a delegate from Bangladesh, told The Associated Press. He said developing countries have demanded that conference president Connie Hedegaard of Denmark bring the industrial nations' emissions targets to the top of the agenda before talks can resume.

Developing countries boycott UN climate talks - Yahoo! News


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 14, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> "We are seeing the death of the Kyoto Protocol," said Djemouai Kamel of Algeria, the head of the 50-nation Africa group.
> 
> "Nothing is happening at this moment," Zia Hoque Mukta, a delegate from Bangladesh, told The Associated Press. He said developing countries have demanded that conference president Connie Hedegaard of Denmark bring the industrial nations' emissions targets to the top of the agenda before talks can resume.
> 
> Developing countries boycott UN climate talks - Yahoo! News


Finally.  Took long enough lingering in intensive care.  I want a "Do Not Resuscitate" order put on it.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 14, 2009)

Big Fitz said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > "We are seeing the death of the Kyoto Protocol," said Djemouai Kamel of Algeria, the head of the 50-nation Africa group.
> ...


Agreed.

But there is almost always more spin to come.  We've already seen the flaccid attempts for the apparent scandal.  So far, none are sticking.  So maybe there is some hope that the entire world is not more emotional than thinking.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 14, 2009)

> Of course you'd disagree. It disagrees with the faith.
> 
> Pie Jesu domine >whack!< Donna ejus requiem. >whack!<


What am I supposed to say back to this? 

"Well of course you agree with the scientific theories of 'State of Fear' since it agrees with your faith"

There, I made an emotional outburst.  

Feels bad lol


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 14, 2009)

Liability said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Obviously you're not a tough guy (or as I wrongly wrote 'tought' guy), real tough guys don't focus on male sperm, or at least guys most guys find such a fascination weird.  Notwithstanding your sexual fascination, it's clear you're a jerk.  What life events cause you to be such a nasty and perverted thing?


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

Debate? What 'Debate"?

How dare a RUBE ask such a question of the 'almighty IPCC'...

The Jounalist got his ANSWER

*[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded"]Armed Response to 'Climategate' question[/ame]*


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

"Who's 'VALUES _HE_ Does _NOT TRUST_"?


----------



## Si modo (Dec 14, 2009)

Big Fitz said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > > But as he researched the topic the more bullshit he kept finding till he realized the whole thing was a scam, and hence *"State of Fear" became an incredibly well researched anti-AGW book*
> ...


Dona eis requiem sempiternam (one can hope).


----------



## Liability (Dec 14, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Actually, dipshit, to make a snide comment about your stupid username invoking an allusion to your own sexual orientation (I do presume you are a gay man) is not exhibiting a fascination.  You'd know that if you had even a passing familiarity with the meaning of words.

In any event, dipstick, whether or not I am "tough" is just not relevant to any mature discussion of anything here -- which you might know if you could *be* mature instead of just pontificating about it in your endlessly hypocritical way.

Now then.  Back on topic.  What relevance is a CV to you?

Oh, right.  I forgot.  You weren't being "on topic" even when you asked that stupid question.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 14, 2009)

Welcome to this special NOAA page for fun science stuff!

NOAA stands for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We are the government agency that focuses on the oceans and skies. Whether you live near the beach, in the mountains, or on the plains, NOAA is at work for you, predicting your weather, studying climate, exploring the oceans, managing coastal resources, assessing fish and marine mammals, and a whole lot more. Thank you for visiting us - we hope you come back often to EXPLORE YOUR WORLD.

Below are links to NOAA Web sites to help you in your explorations...click on the links to learn more!

NOAA Fun for Kids


----------



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

It is very important to treat Satan and his Demons with respect at all times. DON'T EVER SUMMON DEMONS FOR FUN OR TO PLAY AROUND. SUMMONING A DEMON IS VERY DANGEROUS ...

Kids and Teens for Satan


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 14, 2009)

You would think someone in the Climate business would stay a little more current.  We have seen this all before.  Everytime someone in the public gets caught, they all act the same way.


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> You would think someone in the Climate business would stay a little more current. We have seen this all before. Everytime someone in the public gets caught, they all act the same way.


 Of course. Every effort is made toward intimidation.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 14, 2009)

Liability said:


> Actually, dipshit, to make a snide comment about your stupid username invoking an allusion to your own sexual orientation (I do presume you are a gay man) is not exhibiting a fascination.  You'd know that if you had even a passing familiarity with the meaning of words.
> 
> In any event, dipstick, whether or not I am "tough" is just not relevant to any mature discussion of anything here -- which you might know if you could *be* mature instead of just pontificating about it in your endlessly hypocritical way.
> 
> ...


"CV" is a swabbie reference to an aircraft carrier. It's one of those little intra-service rivalry things that only insiders get, or even give a shit about.

Even his attempts at insults suck.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 14, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> "We are seeing the death of the Kyoto Protocol," said Djemouai Kamel of Algeria, the head of the 50-nation Africa group.
> 
> "Nothing is happening at this moment," Zia Hoque Mukta, a delegate from Bangladesh, told The Associated Press. He said developing countries have demanded that conference president Connie Hedegaard of Denmark bring the industrial nations' emissions targets to the top of the agenda before talks can resume.
> 
> Developing countries boycott UN climate talks - Yahoo! News


Well, of course....Eugenics always starts with offing of the weaker.


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

Dude said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > "We are seeing the death of the Kyoto Protocol," said Djemouai Kamel of Algeria, the head of the 50-nation Africa group.
> ...


 And from what I just heard while listening to Rush? They've put off ANY decision for 6 (SIX) years.

Now wait a minute? I thought this was paramount? It had to be done _NOW_ or we are all _doomed?_

But rest easy? OwlGore tells us the glaciers will melt in the next 5 years, so I guess it won't matter.

Now I wonder what effect this news will have on Cap-N-Tax pending in this country?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 14, 2009)

Dude said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, dipshit, to make a snide comment about your stupid username invoking an allusion to your own sexual orientation (I do presume you are a gay man) is not exhibiting a fascination.  You'd know that if you had even a passing familiarity with the meaning of words.
> ...



Dumb and dumber.  CVA or CVN are Naval Vessels, CV is ones resume.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 14, 2009)

Yeah, yeah, yeah....

I wasn't even in the Navy and knew this shit: 



> *CV -- Aircraft Carriers.
> Includes CV, CVA, CVAN, CVB, CVL, CVN, CVS and CVT.*



USN Ships -- by Hull Number: CV -- Aircraft Carriers

That you meant CV as in someone's resume is pretty much irrelevant, fucking dope.


----------



## Liability (Dec 14, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Yeah, fucktard.  I know what a fucking CV is, stupid.  Almost everyone knows that  Hell, it seems even you do.

That still leaves open (and unaswered by you) my question:  of what relevance is my CV to this discussion?

That's right.  It isn't relevant to the discussion in any meaningful way whatsofucking ever.

God God, you are one pathetically ignorant stupid piece of shit.

It's amusing to watch you flail and flounder as you've been doing.


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

Liability said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


 
Wry should'a given up while they _thought they were ahead..._


----------



## Oddball (Dec 16, 2009)

Some more buffoonery, found in the HARRY READ ME file:



> As you read the programmer's comments below, remember, this is only a fraction of what he says.
> 
> - "But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless ..." (Page 17)
> 
> ...



http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/29/11967916-sun.html

The files, for all you "that's out of context" hoax deniers: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 16, 2009)

Man those smart scientists should have been a Little bit smarter about communicating all that electronically.   

You should never type anything on-line you don't want the whole world to see/hear/find out about.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 16, 2009)

Plymco, snarks like T, Dude, Liability, Twister, etc., do it *ALL *the time!


----------



## The T (Dec 16, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Plymco, snarks like T, Dude, Liability, Twister, etc., do it *ALL *the time!


 
Two Words:

*Fuck + You *

Get over yourself, poseur.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 16, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Plymco, snarks like T, Dude, Liability, Twister, etc., do it *ALL *the time!



And as soon as you say that, one of the first three will say something.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 16, 2009)

The T said:


> Two Words:
> 
> *Fuck + You *
> 
> Get over yourself, poseur.



Thomas! Buddy ol Pal ol friend! How are you doing this evening?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 16, 2009)

The T said:


> Get over yourself, poseur.



  So predictable.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 16, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Two Words:
> ...




T is feeling the spirit of Christmas cheer.  He is also putting an awful lot of cheer into the eggnog!


----------



## The T (Dec 16, 2009)

Predictable...Gracie?

You don't know the word...I see two RATS in the _TRAP_






Keep on keepin' on...


----------



## Modbert (Dec 16, 2009)

The T said:


> Predictable...Gracie?
> 
> You don't know the word...I see two RATS in the _TRAP_
> 
> ...



Would one of them happened to be named Ben and the other Mr. Jingles? 

You going to share some of that Christmas spirit with USMB there Thomas?


----------



## Si modo (Dec 16, 2009)

Discuss the fucking topic not each other.  Who gives a shit about your issues?


----------



## The T (Dec 16, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Discuss the fucking topic not each other. Who gives a shit about your issues?


 Thank YOU...


----------



## The T (Dec 16, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Predictable...Gracie?
> ...


 
Fuck You. Discuss the Topic out get out of here .


----------



## The T (Dec 16, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Man those smart scientists should have been a Little bit smarter about communicating all that electronically.
> 
> You should never type anything on-line you don't want the whole world to see/hear/find out about.


 
Their Anti-Virus wasn't working...they've been NAILED


----------



## Annie (Dec 16, 2009)

I'm just noticing that those that 'believe' that man is totally screwing up the environment are staying silent, at least for the most part. (Note, this isn't the only thread.)

The whole climategate broohaha is positively towards the anti-human caused. 

There's a part of me, that wishes there was more 'there' there. Not meant to be.


----------



## Maple (Dec 16, 2009)

Annie said:


> I'm just noticing that those that 'believe' that man is totally screwing up the environment are staying silent, at least for the most part. (Note, this isn't the only thread.)
> 
> The whole climategate broohaha is positively towards the anti-human caused.
> 
> There's a part of me, that wishes there was more 'there' there. Not meant to be.




My mom, who is 80 told me that they used to be worried about a return of the Ice Age when she was growing up and sure enough that is a true statement. Climate change has always occured  search the title "Fire and Ice," documents the last 100 years of climate change and what people thought at the time. I posted it the other day on this thread.

Just ask a senior, they know more than any of us will. They remember and they are a wealth of knowledge.


----------



## concept (Dec 16, 2009)

I see the usual suspects are still in denial and still trying to derail the thread.


----------



## Annie (Dec 17, 2009)

and the Russians keep chiming in:

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming  Telegraph Blogs



> Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
> 
> By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 16th, 2009
> 
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Dec 17, 2009)

Annie said:


> *I'm just noticing that those that 'believe' that man is totally screwing up the environment are staying silent,* at least for the most part. (Note, this isn't the only thread.)
> 
> The whole climategate broohaha is positively towards the anti-human caused.
> 
> There's a part of me, that wishes there was more 'there' there. Not meant to be.


A few of the usual suspects have shifted into shrill denial overdrive.

If they only knew how amusing their feeble assaults are.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 17, 2009)

Methinks the Russians want us to forget about that missile over Norway


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2009)

The T said:


> Predictable...Gracie?
> 
> You don't know the word...I see two RATS in the _TRAP_
> 
> ...



Hey T, ever consider saying anything even slightly intelligent? But then, what can one expect from a Bush butt buddy.


----------



## elvis (Dec 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Predictable...Gracie?
> ...



whatever you say, Monica.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Predictable...Gracie?
> ...



I could teach a parrot to say things smarter than you Old Rocks.  At the appropriate time too.  You just babble at random intervals.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 17, 2009)




----------



## Jay Canuck (Dec 22, 2009)

*[SIZE=+1]The storm of stupidity[/SIZE]* 
*Climate change deniers fight against science* 
   by Gene Lyons 
*Link* 
* Excerpt:* 
So what's next? A series of essays by Sarah Palin about the Large Hadron Collider and the mysteries of dark matter? An MIT lecture series by Rush Limbaugh regarding the thermodynamics of black holes? A Festschrift of Sean Hannity's scholarly articles on plate tectonics and volcano formation? Glenn Beck performing live heart-lung transplants on Fox News? Everybody understands that these things couldn't happen. That when it comes to serious scientific endeavor, years of study and professional apprenticeship are required. In a word, _expertise_. Ex-beauty contestants, drive-time DJs, TV sports announcers, hairstylists, newspaper columnists -- basically anybody whose math skills topped out in the 10th grade -- rarely have anything substantive to add to the sum of technical and scientific knowledge. That's what they most resent about it. It's not impossible that such persons could educate themselves sufficiently to have an informed opinion, but it's rare.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Dec 22, 2009)

*



*


*"You&#8217;re ridiculous." * 
      -- A reporter from Der Spiegel, to  Jim Inhofe (R-Pissquik) after Inhofe  
          accused the UN and the Hollywood elite of creating a global warming hoax,   *Link*


----------



## Liability (Dec 22, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> * * * *
> *"Youre ridiculous." *
> -- A reporter from Der Spiegel, to  Jim Inhofe (R-Pissquik) after Inhofe
> accused the UN and the Hollywood elite of creating a global warming hoax * * * *




Ah.  So refreshing to see OBJECTIVE reporting endorsed by JayCunuckistan.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 22, 2009)

This thread is highly entertaining.

We got the liars on the far left telling us the world is going to end
We got the liars on the far right saying there is no problem its all a scam

Then we got the sane people who say "if the scientists are telling us CO2 leads to a warmer climate, yet CO2 levels have risen steadily over the last 10 years while temps remained flat, is that science still solid?"

Flame away you lying moonbats on both sides, the normal and smart people see you for who you are.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 22, 2009)

> "You&#8217;re ridiculous."
> -- A reporter from Der Spiegel, to Jim Inhofe (R-Pissquik) after Inhofe
> accused the UN and the Hollywood elite of creating a global warming hoax, Link
> Reply With Quote



Spoken like a true imbecile.  Don't question, just as long as fascism succeeds.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 22, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> This thread is highly entertaining.
> 
> We got the liars on the far left telling us the world is going to end
> We got the liars on the far right saying there is no problem its all a scam
> ...


Fact:  The climate changes.  We have evidence of this for the entire history of the planet.  
Fact:  Man is too insignificant to do a damn thing about it.  A single volcanic eruption out does us in days.
Fact:  We have only 2 choices to this issue -- adapt or die.  Just like the dinosaurs.  We cannot affect climate in the short or long term except locally.
Fact:  The purveyors of man-made climate change have been shown to be liars looking to line their own pocket and push a political agenda.

The only moonbats I see are the ones who believe that global fascism (let's just call it what it is) is the only solution to this.  They are so delusional as to believe mankind can actually do more than poison themselves and other species, and most rational people used to be able to ignore them.  Unfortunately they have snuck into the halls of power like rats in the walls, and now we have to get an exterminator to help deal with this vermin problem.


----------



## Zander (Dec 22, 2009)

Big Fitz said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is highly entertaining.
> ...


Sums up the situation very well!


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 22, 2009)




----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 23, 2009)

Big Fitz said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is highly entertaining.
> ...



I can't find anything I disagree with in your post.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 23, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


WOOT!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 23, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> *[SIZE=+1]The storm of stupidity[/SIZE]*
> *Climate change deniers fight against science*
> by Gene Lyons
> *Link*
> ...



"How would you like your data cooked?" Motto of East Angelia College, as a true University it's little more than a pimple on the worlds ass, but the Epicenter for the Greatest Scientific Hoax in Human History.


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > *[SIZE=+1]The storm of stupidity[/SIZE]*
> ...



WELL DONE!

No, I mean, that's how data should be cooked!



I prefer that it be uncooked, personally.  But the intelligentsia of the academic world of AGW in East Anglia and elsewhere seemingly diagree.


----------



## concept (Dec 27, 2009)

877 Records set or tied in the US in the last week...

877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week « Watts Up With That?






Yeah one of the coldest Decembers on record.


----------



## Annie (Dec 28, 2009)

And the scientists who care about methods, well they keep working on this:

Announcing The Timeline, ClimateGate: 30 years in the making « JoNova








> Heres a Spectacular Poster of ClimateGate Covering 3 Decades
> You have to see this to believe it. Look up close and admire the detail while you despair at how long science has been going off the rails. To better appreciate the past and what was exposed by the CRU emails, the Timeline chart consolidates and chronologically organizes the information uncovered and published about the CRU emails by many researchers along with some related contextual events. That the chart exists at all is yet another example of how skilled experts are flocking in to the skeptics position and dedicating hours of time pro bono because they are passionately motivated to fight against those who try to deceive us.
> 
> Click on the image to see it enlarged, but download the full PDF to see the detail.
> ...


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 28, 2009)

You people won't let anything go, will you?  The e-mails have been analyzed, examined, digested, and re-read and even the AP says there is nothing there.  But keep dragging it on, along with the GOP hopeful, Flalin Palin.


----------



## Annie (Dec 28, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> You people won't let anything go, will you?  The e-mails have been analyzed, examined, digested, and re-read and even the AP says there is nothing there.  But keep dragging it on, along with the GOP hopeful, Flalin Palin.



and you spell denial, how?


----------



## Liability (Dec 28, 2009)

Annie said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > You people won't let anything go, will you?  The e-mails have been analyzed, examined, digested, and re-read and *even the AP says* there is nothing there.  But keep dragging it on, along with the GOP hopeful, Flalin Palin.
> ...



"AP"



"even the AP says"


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 28, 2009)

After all the yap-yap, the warming continues. And it is not made up. The Melting of the Permafrost, the melting of the North Polar Ice. The extreme drought on several continents. 

The temperatures are high at a time we should have seen a marked decrease in the temperatures. If you look at a graph of the past temperatures, you see periods of rising, and periods of falling temperatures over the last 150 years. Each time, the temperatures have risen higher than the previous peak. So, with the most marked solar minimum that we have seen in this weather record, and a strong and persistant La Nina in 2008, and 2009, we should have seen years that at least were in the middle of the 150 year record. What we see, is 2008 as 9th or 10th warmest year on record, and 2009 as the 5th warmest year on record.

So how does that square with all of your statements? First, you say the sun is the driver, then when the sun is at a solar minimum, and we are still in the warmest decade on record, so what is the why of that? Couldn't be because the amount of anthropogenic GHGs in the atmosphere is simply too great for a very minor decrease in TSI to make any differance, could it? 

Remember, one of the predictions concerning the climate change that we are experiancing is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall all warming trend.


----------



## concept (Dec 28, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> You people won't let anything go, will you?  The e-mails have been analyzed, examined, digested, and re-read and even the AP says there is nothing there.  But keep dragging it on, along with the GOP hopeful, Flalin Palin.



The AP?  

Have they looked at the data that was also released? That's where the real damage is done.


----------



## concept (Dec 28, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> After all the yap-yap, the warming continues. And it is not made up. The Melting of the Permafrost, the melting of the North Polar Ice. The extreme drought on several continents.
> 
> The temperatures are high at a time we should have seen a marked decrease in the temperatures. If you look at a graph of the past temperatures, you see periods of rising, and periods of falling temperatures over the last 150 years. Each time, the temperatures have risen higher than the previous peak. So, with the most marked solar minimum that we have seen in this weather record, and a strong and persistant La Nina in 2008, and 2009, we should have seen years that at least were in the middle of the 150 year record. What we see, is 2008 as 9th or 10th warmest year on record, and 2009 as the 5th warmest year on record.
> 
> ...



Record cold temperatures.


But the warming continues...


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 28, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> You people won't let anything go, will you?  The e-mails have been analyzed, examined, digested, and re-read and even the AP says there is nothing there.  But keep dragging it on, along with the GOP hopeful, Flalin Palin.



Gee there were a bunch of dimwits here just a week or so ago, claiming only real scientists could make such determinations.  Now some AP reporters are just fine and dandy to do a complete analysis.

The Southern ice caps have 90% of the world's ice in them and they are growing.  Too bad you didn't show up earlier however, you might have been able to save the polar bears there.  If you hurry maybe you can preserve the penguins at the North Pole huh?


----------



## Annie (Dec 29, 2009)

Interesting how none of our MSM is covering this, but others world wide keep at it:

The questions Dr Pachauri still has to answer - Telegraph



> The questions Dr Pachauri still has to answer
> At the least, Dr Rajendra Pachauri's IPCC position as the world's "top climate official" has been earning a substantial income for Teri, the institute he runs.
> 
> By Christopher Booker
> ...



There's lots more, all of it damning.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 29, 2009)

Annie said:


> Interesting how none of our MSM is covering this, but others world wide keep at it:
> 
> The questions Dr Pachauri still has to answer - Telegraph
> 
> ...



The whole thing reminds me of a college football scandal.  First its an arrest of a player, then alumni cash to players, the coach illegally recruits and even the academic records of the players come back cooked.  One giant cancer.


----------



## channoff (Dec 29, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> After all the yap-yap, the warming continues. And it is not made up. The Melting of the Permafrost, the melting of the North Polar Ice. The extreme drought on several continents.
> 
> The temperatures are high at a time we should have seen a marked decrease in the temperatures. If you look at a graph of the past temperatures, you see periods of rising, and periods of falling temperatures over the last 150 years. Each time, the temperatures have risen higher than the previous peak. So, with the most marked solar minimum that we have seen in this weather record, and a strong and persistant La Nina in 2008, and 2009, we should have seen years that at least were in the middle of the 150 year record. What we see, is 2008 as 9th or 10th warmest year on record, and 2009 as the 5th warmest year on record.
> 
> ...



You realize that there is a 7 to 9 year lag in temperature behind solar minima and maxima, right????  It should be 2014 before we see any effect from this minimum.  but I'm sure you already knew that.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 29, 2009)

Old Rocksinthehead only knows what a bunch of people that he claims are smarter than any of us say.....If they don't say it, then it cannot be true.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> You people won't let anything go, will you?  The e-mails have been analyzed, examined, digested, and re-read and even the AP says there is nothing there.  But keep dragging it on, along with the GOP hopeful, Flalin Palin.



Why are facts so mean to Libruls?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2009)

Once again, this is not Venus, this is Earth, atmospheric CO2 is 380 parts per million; it's a rounding error. That's .038%. Yet Warmers act as if it's some deadly Amazonian poison where even a deminimus increase would bring instant death to the planet.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 10, 2010)

I thought science is about proving or disproving certain claims rather than settling on most possible result. When science settle, that&#8217;s a sign they don't know what real result is. Otherwise, they would prove or disprove the theory. It's interesting when you have two groups of scientists claiming they are both right. 

Some 50 years ago, scientists did similar thing with gamma ray signals from space and all of them but one scientist agreed on most possible answer among several others. All but one... Bohdan Paczynski (Princeton) and that one was trashed, called denier, lost his job, until there was a proof that he was right all along. Anyone remembers that one?

That's what's happening when science settle. Seems familiar?


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 10, 2010)

JimH52 said:


> You people won't let anything go, will you?  The e-mails have been analyzed, examined, digested, and re-read and even the AP says there is nothing there.  But keep dragging it on, along with the GOP hopeful, Flalin Palin.



By reporters JimH52.  Read the AP article.


----------



## Liability (Jan 10, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > You people won't let anything go, will you?  The e-mails have been analyzed, examined, digested, and re-read and even the AP says there is nothing there.  But keep dragging it on, along with the GOP hopeful, Flalin Palin.
> ...



The fox who was assigned the job of guarding the hen-house was later accused by the hens of being responsible for killing and devouring several of their number.  These allegations were thoroughly investigated by other foxes.  The foxes concluded that the hens' allegations were "unfounded."

There you have it.  The fox just got a bum rap.  The foxes investigated and they SAID so!


----------



## concept (Jan 10, 2010)

Libs never seem to mention the DATA that was also released from Hadley.

And its that data that shows the lie. Even more than the incriminating emails.

And lets not forget New Zealand where they they foun d the same thing.



Poor dishonest libs. You sure got the crap kicked out of you on this.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 10, 2010)

So anyway, what do greenhouse gasses do to the amount of heat retained in an atmosphere?

Also I'm wondering if them shipping companies are lying about that northern route opening up.  Perhaps they're in on the scam....


----------



## concept (Jan 10, 2010)

Toronado3800 said:


> So anyway, what do greenhouse gasses do to the amount of heat retained in an atmosphere?
> 
> Also I'm wondering if them shipping companies are lying about that northern route opening up.  Perhaps they're in on the scam....



It's been OPEN since 1934.  

Climate claim falls foul of advertising regulator - Short Sharp Science - New Scientist


> The Northeast Passage - a trade route linking North European and Siberian ports to Asia in summer months - has been open since 1934, according to The Register, and was made available as a route for international traffic after the fall of the Soviet Union.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 10, 2010)

> But the current thaw is already real enough for the four million people who live in the Arctic, including about 150,000 Inuit. "As long as it's ice," said Sheila Watt-Cloutier, leader of a transnational Inuit group, "nobody cares except us, because we hunt and fish and travel on that ice. However, the minute it starts to thaw and becomes water, then the whole world is interested."


NY Times sprawling article

I have my doubts.  Think your article is confusing issues with seasonal differences.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 11, 2010)

concept said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > So anyway, what do greenhouse gasses do to the amount of heat retained in an atmosphere?
> ...



*Open provided you had a large Ice Breaker ahead of you.*

A triumph for man, a disaster for mankind - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

We are all very proud and delighted to be the first Western shipping company to have successfully transited the legendary North-east Passage and delivered a sensitive cargo safely through this extraordinarily demanding sea area," he said. He also estimated that the path had saved $92,000 (£55,000) worth of fuel for each ship. 

Despite global warming, the Northeast Passage is still seriously hampered by hundred-mile long swathes of shifting pack ice that extend southwards from the North Pole even in summer. The islands off the north coast of Siberia also contain glaciers which cast icebergs into the warming waters of the passage with increasing frequency. 

In 1983 a Russian ship was crushed by pack ice it encountered in the passage in the middle of summer. However, the Russian Transport Ministry which operates a fleet of six nuclear powered-ice-breakers to assist Russian and other coastal commercial ships, says that in recent summers the route has rarely been completely impassable. "The ice conditions were far more severe 20 years ago," a spokesman said. 

The voyage of the two Beluga vessels was certainly no picnic. Although not thoroughbred ice-breakers themselves, both ships were designed to cope with ice-strewn waters and were accompanied by at least one Russian nuclear ice-breaker during the whole of the trip. The two ships encountered snow, fog, ice floes, and treacherous icebergs which showed only about one meter of their huge underwater volume on the sea's surface.


----------



## concept (Jan 11, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> concept said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



Open since 1934. 


Get a grip.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 11, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > You people won't let anything go, will you?  The e-mails have been analyzed, examined, digested, and re-read and even the AP says there is nothing there.  But keep dragging it on, along with the GOP hopeful, Flalin Palin.
> ...


Because truth never obeys them.  It exposes them.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 11, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> concept said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...


And?  So?  120 years ago, the Thames froze over in the winter.  Still not man's fault.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 11, 2010)

concept said:


> Libs never seem to mention the DATA that was also released from Hadley.
> 
> And its that data that shows the lie. Even more than the incriminating emails.
> 
> ...



Why are facts so cruel to Warmers?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 11, 2010)

> And? So? 120 years ago, the Thames froze over in the winter. Still not man's fault.


Who knows if the new opening is man's fault or not.  Conservative old me is going to sit here and worry about if it is and despite the time I spend on the computer I'm not lazy so I'm going to do something about it.

Is hiding from greenhouse gas regulations like a man sitting here drinking beers knowing how many calories they have and looking at his stomach wondering why he isn't thinner?

I mean, we don't KNOW its the calories from the beer making him fat (greenhouse gasses melting ice).  We know what calories do(yup, we know greenhouse gasses hold in heat).  Perhaps its more his sedentary life style(heck, the solar cycle could be changing TOMORROW!).  Still though how many beers should he be dumping in his system.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 11, 2010)

> Is hiding from greenhouse gas regulations like a man sitting here drinking beers knowing how many calories they have and looking at his stomach wondering why he isn't thinner?



Ummm.  No.  Not equivalent.  Not even remotely.


----------



## concept (Jan 11, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> concept said:
> 
> 
> > Libs never seem to mention the DATA that was also released from Hadley.
> ...



They are in denial.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 1, 2010)

And the hits on CRU just keep on a-coming.

*The Institute of Physics*, a society of more than 36,000, submits a scathing report to the British Parliamentary Inquiry into the scandal...



> *What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The entire report *HERE*.


----------



## Si modo (Mar 1, 2010)

A bit dated (December), but I couldn't agree more with this:  





> An Insult to All Science &#8211; Are We Beyond Reproach?
> 
> By Guest Author on December 23rd, 2009
> 
> ...


An Insult to All Science ? Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale | Climate Realists


----------



## California Girl (Mar 2, 2010)

Si modo said:


> A bit dated (December), but I couldn't agree more with this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What a well written piece. Some scientists are just not capable of writing in a language that the layperson can understand. (Yay for that cuz I get work from those dudes!!! ).  The author makes some very important points about the separation of science and state.


----------



## Si modo (Mar 2, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > A bit dated (December), but I couldn't agree more with this:
> ...


  Solid market for you!


----------



## California Girl (Mar 2, 2010)

Si modo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



It could be. I'm not sure I'd want to work too closely with people who twist their research to suit their political agenda. I've met a few climate change scientists... they have always struck me as too close to what they want the results to say. Peer Review by others with the same political agenda is not peer review. Don't you think?


----------



## Si modo (Mar 2, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...


I understand where you are coming from, but as the piece implied, those who do such things are the exception rather than the rule.

It is such a shame that a division of science - a difficult one in the sense that it is so broad-based in all of the fundamental physical sciences that the jack-of-all/master-of-none adage applies - has been so politicized.  No other branch or division has such a problem.  Thus, it's understandable that one would be suspicious of any of them.

I think that is pretty much the point of that piece.  Any scientist who regards their scientific integrity as something that is priceless should be spitting mad at the hacks.

So, you could write for the other scientists, the ones who most likely have integrity.


----------



## California Girl (Mar 2, 2010)

Si modo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I have to say, I'm now considering whether other disciplines are open to similar problems. Perhaps the 'social scientists'.... I think I might look into that one.


----------



## Si modo (Mar 2, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...


Ah.  Excellent point.  The social sciences are filled with post modernists.  They try to project that philosophy onto the 'hard' scientists.  It's a battle that has been going on between the 'hard' and 'soft' scientists for some time.

A few of us had a cool discussion about that in one of the religion threads.  It's a great idea to talk about that.


----------

