Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming

[OohPooPahDoo]

ladies and gentlemen, i give you the state of climate alarmism. Scientists who knowingly pass off bad information are the norm for you guys. Congrats. In two years your masters will have completely discredited science as a whole. All for a few million in their pockets.

And that is criminal.


To: Gabi hegerl; klaus hasselmann

cc: Prof.dr. Hans von storch; myles allen; francis; reiner schnur; phil jones; tom crowley; nathan gillett; david karoly; jesse kenyon; [email protected]; pennell, william t; tett, simon; ben santer; karl taylor; stott, peter; bamzai, anjuli

subject: Re: Spring meeting

not to be a trouble maker but……if we are going to really get into the paleo stuff, maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as i remember. For instance, i seem to remember he used, say, 4 eofs as predictors. But he prescreened them and threw one away because it was not useful. Then made a model with the remaining three, ignoring the fact he had originally considered 4 predictors. He never added an artifical skill measure to account for this but based significance on 3 predictors. Might not make any difference. My memory is probably faulty on these issues, but to be completely even handed we ought to be sure we agree with his procedures. Best, tim

and
? Who the fuck is Tim and why should we care?

Yup, that's scientific integrity, right?

Can you speak in complete, coherent thoughts?

 

[Cuyo]

Interesting article, more for what it leaves out than anything. It looks like partial cherry picked out of context quotes and claims. Where are these supposed "newly leaked" emails in their entirety?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the entire climate change denial movement.

And what is being "denied"?

I didn't read that tripe he posted. Nor do I need to. I'm fairly sure Coyote's assessment is accurate. Crap like this all reads the same. Someone got a little cavalier (or so the author attempts to make it seem), ergo conclusion, the whole thing must be a hoax. Ho-hum. I take comfort in knowing the denial shit is duly marginalized where it matters.

As to bripat9643, glad you found an outlet for your frustration. Don't hurt nobody. The crap you people endorse is duly marginalized in the circles that matter.

 

[Cuyo]

Interesting article, more for what it leaves out than anything. It looks like partial cherry picked out of context quotes and claims. Where are these supposed "newly leaked" emails in their entirety?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the entire climate change denial movement.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the state of climate alarmism. Scientists who knowingly pass off bad information are the norm for you guys. Congrats. In two years your masters will have completely discredited science as a whole. All for a few million in their pockets.

And that is criminal.


To: Gabi Hegerl; Klaus Hasselmann

Cc: Prof.Dr. Hans von Storch; Myles Allen; francis; Reiner Schnur; Phil Jones; Tom Crowley; Nathan Gillett; David Karoly; Jesse Kenyon; [email protected]; Pennell, William T; Tett, Simon; Ben Santer; Karl Taylor; Stott, Peter; Bamzai, Anjuli

Subject: Re: spring meeting

not to be a trouble maker but……if we are going to really get into the paleo stuff, maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as i remember. for instance, i seem to remember he used, say, 4 EOFs as predictors. But he prescreened them and threw one away because it was not useful. then made a model with the remaining three, ignoring the fact he had originally considered 4 predictors. He never added an artifical skill measure to account for this but based significance on 3 predictors. Might not make any difference. My memory is probably faulty on these issues, but to be completely even handed we ought to be sure we agree with his procedures. best, tim

That's your smoking gun?

What a maroon.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hot Planet, Cold Market

By Bryan Walsh Monday, Dec. 12, 2011

The idea was simple enough: establish a limit on greenhouse gases — the emissions from power plants, transport and factories that cause global warming. Then force industries to meet that cap by either reducing their emissions or purchasing carbon credits — investments in projects that will reduce greenhouse-gas emissions somewhere else. Such carbon trading seemed like an ideal way to reduce greenhouse gases, better than having governments simply slap on politically unpopular energy taxes. Once the Kyoto Protocol went into effect in 2005, mandating greenhouse-gas reductions in nearly every developed nation (with the notable exception of the U.S., which refused to sign on), rich countries could fund carbon-reduction projects in developing nations. The climate — and the market — would win.

Except that's not quite how it's worked out. The fact that the U.S. — historically, the world's biggest emitter — opted out of the Kyoto Protocol meant that the deal was lopsided, with nearly all the action taking place in greener Europe. But even there, carbon trading has run into problems stemming from the financial crisis and uncertainty over international climate policy. At the end of November, the price of U.N.-backed carbon permits fell to an all-time low of less than $8 a ton, down more than 50% since June. And with little hope for a breakthrough at the U.N. climate-change summit under way in the South African city of Durban, that uncertainty will likely only deepen, with depressing effects for the financial market that was supposed to save the planet. "The global carbon market is at a crossroads," World Bank climate-change envoy Andrew Steer said earlier this year. "If we take the wrong turn, we risk losing billions of dollars in lower-cost private investment and new technology solutions in developing nations."
(See photos of the effects of global warming.)

The future of the Kyoto Protocol is the biggest issue facing the international delegates at Durban, and it's also the biggest question facing the global carbon market. Kyoto's commitment period for carbon reductions ends in 2012, and right now it's not clear what, if anything, will follow it. Developing countries, which are currently exempt from any mandated greenhouse-gas reductions under Kyoto, want to see rich nations take on additional cuts under the existing Kyoto framework.

Canada, Japan and Russia — all signatories to Kyoto — have said they won't accept additional commitments under the current system, and the U.S. is handcuffed by domestic opposition to any climate action. For its part, the European Union — which has agreed on its own to cut carbon emissions at least 20% by 2020 — is open to further reduction commitments, but the bloc accounts for just 11% of global emissions, outpaced by rapidly growing developing nations like China. "We've seen things going in completely the wrong direction from where they need to be," says Jennifer Morgan, director of the climate and energy program at the Washington-based World Resources Institute.


Read more: Why Global Carbon Trading Is in a Slump - TIME




W I N N I N G





Oh......not in a slump either........its officially DEAD......so like I siad....the science doesnt mean dick

 

[Si modo]

and
? Who the fuck is Tim and why should we care?

Yup, that's scientific integrity, right?

Can you speak in complete, coherent thoughts?

OK. Is that email reflective of scientific integrity by Mann?

 

[Si modo]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the entire climate change denial movement.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the state of climate alarmism. Scientists who knowingly pass off bad information are the norm for you guys. Congrats. In two years your masters will have completely discredited science as a whole. All for a few million in their pockets.

And that is criminal.


To: Gabi Hegerl; Klaus Hasselmann

Cc: Prof.Dr. Hans von Storch; Myles Allen; francis; Reiner Schnur; Phil Jones; Tom Crowley; Nathan Gillett; David Karoly; Jesse Kenyon; [email protected]; Pennell, William T; Tett, Simon; Ben Santer; Karl Taylor; Stott, Peter; Bamzai, Anjuli

Subject: Re: spring meeting

not to be a trouble maker but……if we are going to really get into the paleo stuff, maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as i remember. for instance, i seem to remember he used, say, 4 EOFs as predictors. But he prescreened them and threw one away because it was not useful. then made a model with the remaining three, ignoring the fact he had originally considered 4 predictors. He never added an artifical skill measure to account for this but based significance on 3 predictors. Might not make any difference. My memory is probably faulty on these issues, but to be completely even handed we ought to be sure we agree with his procedures. best, tim

That's your smoking gun?

What a maroon.

Oh, it's just one of hundreds of email exchanges reflecting lack of scientific integrity by big-name players in climate science.

Is lack of scientific integrity a good thing in the sciences?

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Si modo]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the entire climate change denial movement.

And what is being "denied"?

I didn't read that tripe he posted. Nor do I need to. I'm fairly sure Coyote's assessment is accurate. Crap like this all reads the same. Someone got a little cavalier (or so the author attempts to make it seem), ergo conclusion, the whole thing must be a hoax. Ho-hum. I take comfort in knowing the denial shit is duly marginalized where it matters.

As to bripat9643, glad you found an outlet for your frustration. Don't hurt nobody. The crap you people endorse is duly marginalized in the circles that matter.

The "tripe" you refer to are email exchanges (thus in context) of conversations among climate scientists.

The "crap" you refer to is an outrage over the lack of scientific integrity. Enemies of science find no problem with that, though.

So, what is being "denied"?

 

[Cuyo]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the state of climate alarmism. Scientists who knowingly pass off bad information are the norm for you guys. Congrats. In two years your masters will have completely discredited science as a whole. All for a few million in their pockets.

And that is criminal.


To: Gabi Hegerl; Klaus Hasselmann

Cc: Prof.Dr. Hans von Storch; Myles Allen; francis; Reiner Schnur; Phil Jones; Tom Crowley; Nathan Gillett; David Karoly; Jesse Kenyon; [email protected]; Pennell, William T; Tett, Simon; Ben Santer; Karl Taylor; Stott, Peter; Bamzai, Anjuli

Subject: Re: spring meeting

not to be a trouble maker but……if we are going to really get into the paleo stuff, maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as i remember. for instance, i seem to remember he used, say, 4 EOFs as predictors. But he prescreened them and threw one away because it was not useful. then made a model with the remaining three, ignoring the fact he had originally considered 4 predictors. He never added an artifical skill measure to account for this but based significance on 3 predictors. Might not make any difference. My memory is probably faulty on these issues, but to be completely even handed we ought to be sure we agree with his procedures. best, tim

That's your smoking gun?

What a maroon.

Oh, it's just one of hundreds of email exchanges reflecting lack of scientific integrity by big-name players in climate science.

Is lack of scientific integrity a good thing in the sciences?

Of course not. But look what they're up against, where any ant hill of anti-AGW evidence will be treated with equal weight of the Mt. Everest of evidence for AGW. I can sympathize with their frustration, especially with so much at stake, not that I necessarily excuse it.

 

[skookerasbil]

Mark Landsbaum: Global warming alarmists try again | global, warming, climate - Opinion - The Orange County Register

 

[skookerasbil]

That's your smoking gun?

What a maroon.

Oh, it's just one of hundreds of email exchanges reflecting lack of scientific integrity by big-name players in climate science.

Is lack of scientific integrity a good thing in the sciences?

Of course not. But look what they're up against, where any ant hill of anti-AGW evidence will be treated with equal weight of the Mt. Everest of evidence for AGW. I can sympathize with their frustration, especially with so much at stake, not that I necessarily excuse it.

but only the fringe k00ks think "somethings at stake". Nobody else does...............

 

[westwall]

and
? Who the fuck is Tim and why should we care?

Yup, that's scientific integrity, right?

Can you speak in complete, coherent thoughts?

Why bother? You're not capable of understanding them.

 

[skookerasbil]

Im still laughing from the published statement from the UN this past summer on the cost of going green................

That number could get support from only one group: the fcukking k00ks.

 

[westwall]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the entire climate change denial movement.

And what is being "denied"?

I didn't read that tripe he posted. Nor do I need to. I'm fairly sure Coyote's assessment is accurate. Crap like this all reads the same. Someone got a little cavalier (or so the author attempts to make it seem), ergo conclusion, the whole thing must be a hoax. Ho-hum. I take comfort in knowing the denial shit is duly marginalized where it matters.

As to bripat9643, glad you found an outlet for your frustration. Don't hurt nobody. The crap you people endorse is duly marginalized in the circles that matter.

Of course you don't bother to look at the evidence. Blind fools like you are the reasons the Catholic Church was able to abuse children for so long. The faithful don't look at evidence. It might hurt their heads.

 

[Si modo]

That's your smoking gun?

What a maroon.

Oh, it's just one of hundreds of email exchanges reflecting lack of scientific integrity by big-name players in climate science.

Is lack of scientific integrity a good thing in the sciences?

Of course not. But look what they're up against, where any ant hill of anti-AGW evidence will be treated with equal weight of the Mt. Everest of evidence for AGW. I can sympathize with their frustration, especially with so much at stake, not that I necessarily excuse it.

Well, usually there is no evidence of a void. If there is an "ant hill" of evidence of a void, I would like to see how that was done.

Irrespective of that simple problem, those I assume that are 'deniers' to you, prefer to have the science speak for itself - to give the science a chance.

When there is a lack of integrity in that science, that's a problem.

 

[skookerasbil]

That's your smoking gun?

What a maroon.

Oh, it's just one of hundreds of email exchanges reflecting lack of scientific integrity by big-name players in climate science.

Is lack of scientific integrity a good thing in the sciences?

Of course not. But look what they're up against, where any ant hill of anti-AGW evidence will be treated with equal weight of the Mt. Everest of evidence for AGW. I can sympathize with their frustration, especially with so much at stake, not that I necessarily excuse it.

 

[Cuyo]

And what is being "denied"?

I didn't read that tripe he posted. Nor do I need to. I'm fairly sure Coyote's assessment is accurate. Crap like this all reads the same. Someone got a little cavalier (or so the author attempts to make it seem), ergo conclusion, the whole thing must be a hoax. Ho-hum. I take comfort in knowing the denial shit is duly marginalized where it matters.

As to bripat9643, glad you found an outlet for your frustration. Don't hurt nobody. The crap you people endorse is duly marginalized in the circles that matter.

The "tripe" you refer to are email exchanges (thus in context) of conversations among climate scientists.

The "crap" you refer to is an outrage over the lack of scientific integrity. Enemies of science find no problem with that, though.

So, what is being "denied"?

Ask skook, walleyes and bripat, and throngs of other ne'er-do-well dopes here who will tell you it's proof-positive that AGW is a conspiracy.

(incidentally, as of 2 minutes ago, skook is the first and only person I've ever put on ignore)

You've never point-blank told me you thing AGW is wrong; but you have however indicated that you don't think it's settled, and my understanding is that you believe that in the mean time we as a people should behave as if it is false. Is that correct?

 

[skookerasbil]

Yo.........si Modo..........back at the end of the summer I asked one single nutter to come up with a single link to show us all where the alarmists are winning??

Here we are about 9 weeks later and I see nada...........still............