Climate Gate Debunked

[westwall]

Every single climate "scientist" is a lobbyist, or haven't you figured that one out yet.

Hilarious. If that is the case then every scientist in every field is a lobbyist. But we know it's not the case, you're just trying to deflect from your giving a lawyer's opinion in a science matter. A lawyer from Heartland in fact.

In point of fact they are. I guess you're not too aware of how academia works. Science is funded by GRANTS. Grants are provided by government, or foundations, or business, to do research that the organization giving the money thinks is worthwhile. So, how do you think they get those grants? Yep, they LOBBY for them.

Feel free to substantiate your alleged point with some kind of evidence other than idle speculation, ill considered opinion, and generic knee jerk characterizations.

I just did. Funny how you have no clue how the academic world works, and funds itself.

 

[IanC]

It was rather bizarre that the Penn State inquiry actually put forward in words that Mann was unlikely to have committed any impropriety because of all the funding he brought in.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hide the Decline

Mann's Nature Trick

 

[Liminal]

Every single climate "scientist" is a lobbyist, or haven't you figured that one out yet.

Hilarious. If that is the case then every scientist in every field is a lobbyist. But we know it's not the case, you're just trying to deflect from your giving a lawyer's opinion in a science matter. A lawyer from Heartland in fact.

In point of fact they are. I guess you're not too aware of how academia works. Science is funded by GRANTS. Grants are provided by government, or foundations, or business, to do research that the organization giving the money thinks is worthwhile. So, how do you think they get those grants? Yep, they LOBBY for them.

Feel free to substantiate your alleged point with some kind of evidence other than idle speculation, ill considered opinion, and generic knee jerk characterizations.

I just did. Funny how you have no clue how the academic world works, and funds itself.

No you didn't, never could have, never will.

 

[westwall]

Every single climate "scientist" is a lobbyist, or haven't you figured that one out yet.

Hilarious. If that is the case then every scientist in every field is a lobbyist. But we know it's not the case, you're just trying to deflect from your giving a lawyer's opinion in a science matter. A lawyer from Heartland in fact.

In point of fact they are. I guess you're not too aware of how academia works. Science is funded by GRANTS. Grants are provided by government, or foundations, or business, to do research that the organization giving the money thinks is worthwhile. So, how do you think they get those grants? Yep, they LOBBY for them.

Feel free to substantiate your alleged point with some kind of evidence other than idle speculation, ill considered opinion, and generic knee jerk characterizations.

I just did. Funny how you have no clue how the academic world works, and funds itself.

No you didn't, never could have, never will.

Well, when a person, such as yourself, is so demonstrably intellectually dishonest, no amount of evidence will ever convince you otherwise. I can post link after link of the various data manipulations that the AGW supporters have been caught doing and you will simply ignore them because you don't care about facts.

You are only a propagandist so facts truly don't matter. To you. The rest of the world on the other hand feels differently about facts, so they care.

 

[mamooth]

Climategate was debunked 5 years ago. The deniers involved were revealed to be frauds who had been caught lying about everything, and the denier cult never recovered from that loss of credibility.

So why are some deniers so keen to revisit those days of their humiliation? Deniers may have been considered frauds in 2010, but they were considered frauds worth debunking. In 2015, everyone just ignores the deniers. To a denier, 2010 looks like their glory days. They want to return to the era when people paid attention to them, if only to debunk their fraud.

 

[westwall]

Climategate was debunked 5 years ago. The deniers involved were revealed to be frauds who had been caught lying about everything, and the denier cult never recovered from that loss of credibility.

So why are some deniers so keen to revisit those days of their humiliation? Deniers may have been considered frauds in 2010, but they were considered frauds worth debunking. In 2015, everyone just ignores the deniers. To a denier, 2010 looks like their glory days. They want to return to the era when people paid attention to them, if only to debunk their fraud.

No, it wasn't. In fact the continuing information being released has been critical to the roll back of the various carbon tax schemes promulgated by the one percenters trying to make themselves ever richer.

 

[westwall]

Climategate was debunked 5 years ago. The deniers involved were revealed to be frauds who had been caught lying about everything, and the denier cult never recovered from that loss of credibility.

So why are some deniers so keen to revisit those days of their humiliation? Deniers may have been considered frauds in 2010, but they were considered frauds worth debunking. In 2015, everyone just ignores the deniers. To a denier, 2010 looks like their glory days. They want to return to the era when people paid attention to them, if only to debunk their fraud.

No, it wasn't. In fact the continuing information being released has been critical to the roll back of the various carbon tax schemes promulgated by the one percenters trying to make themselves ever richer.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sure thing. Funnily enough the facts don't support your propaganda. But that IS the nature of propaganda, tell a lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe you. Only, they don't anymore thanks to the internet which doesn't allow the AGW cultists to control the information any longer.

"A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data."

Climategate 2.0 New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes

Old news from 2011, already debunked.

You really do have your head rectally impacted..

You simply cant debate a fool and this proves it.. no matter what the evidence is they will simply dismiss it because it does not fit their propagandist goals..

 

[jc456]

I see you took my advice. Isn't that special?

 

[jc456]

The so called Climate Gate e-mail scandal is easily debunked nonsense, complete horse shit, a manufactured scandal tailor made for a FOX News audience.

This doesn't look like a Fox News report isn't that your declared?

 

[Liminal]

The so called Climate Gate e-mail scandal is easily debunked nonsense, complete horse shit, a manufactured scandal tailor made for a FOX News audience.

This doesn't look like a Fox News report isn't that your declared?

I don't know? Is it?

 

[Liminal]

Hilarious. If that is the case then every scientist in every field is a lobbyist. But we know it's not the case, you're just trying to deflect from your giving a lawyer's opinion in a science matter. A lawyer from Heartland in fact.

In point of fact they are. I guess you're not too aware of how academia works. Science is funded by GRANTS. Grants are provided by government, or foundations, or business, to do research that the organization giving the money thinks is worthwhile. So, how do you think they get those grants? Yep, they LOBBY for them.

Feel free to substantiate your alleged point with some kind of evidence other than idle speculation, ill considered opinion, and generic knee jerk characterizations.

I just did. Funny how you have no clue how the academic world works, and funds itself.

No you didn't, never could have, never will.

Well, when a person, such as yourself, is so demonstrably intellectually dishonest, no amount of evidence will ever convince you otherwise. I can post link after link of the various data manipulations that the AGW supporters have been caught doing and you will simply ignore them because you don't care about facts.

You are only a propagandist so facts truly don't matter. To you. The rest of the world on the other hand feels differently about facts, so they care.

Don't you want to post some phony, childish, completely debunked climategate horseshit about now?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The so called Climate Gate e-mail scandal is easily debunked nonsense, complete horse shit, a manufactured scandal tailor made for a FOX News audience.

This doesn't look like a Fox News report isn't that your declared?

He lied... GO figure...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hide the Decline

Mann's Nature Trick

No warming for 15 years -- Phil Jones

 

[jc456]

I can tell now you are just a child, WSJ was the first to report on it

No, WSJ was not the first to report that AGW was real, nor that ClimateGate was a non issue. None of which will make the slightest bit of difference to the Fox suckers.

The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism

There were good reasons for doubt, until now.

http://www.wsj.com

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups.

We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.​

Unclear your issues with Fox News are you calling them liars? Please be clearer!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BBC- Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Jones: ..."So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other."

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Jones: Yes, but only just.'

 

[Liminal]

Without climategate, the followers have nothing to fall back on.

 

[westwall]

Without climategate, the followers have nothing to fall back on.

Not rue at all. We have the fact that the AGW theory itself is false. This has been shown with empirical data that is irrefutable. The CO2 level has continued to climb to levels far higher than even Hansen dreamed possible, and the global temperature rate of increase first slowed, then stopped, and now appears poised to begin a decline... All of which your high priests claimed was impossible.

CLIMATEGATE merely showed the whole world the corruption that exists within the scatological....er I mean climatology field of "science".

 

[Liminal]

Without climategate, the followers have nothing to fall back on.

Not rue at all. We have the fact that the AGW theory itself is false. This has been shown with empirical data that is irrefutable. The CO2 level has continued to climb to levels far higher than even Hansen dreamed possible, and the global temperature rate of increase first slowed, then stopped, and now appears poised to begin a decline... All of which your high priests claimed was impossible.

CLIMATEGATE merely showed the whole world the corruption that exists within the scatological....er I mean climatology field of "science".

Sounds like you have strong opinions about this. But I have to wonder what they are based on. You seem to rely on a minority opinion, and then throw in a lot of idle speculation and politically motivated rhetoric. It seems you are compelled by some pretty thin evidence.