Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming

[Si modo]

It was posted already? Really? Because its not here:


Where does Tim Scrips accuse anyone of "scientific misconduct" in this email? he doesn't.

What the hell?
Are you under the influence of something?

There is no Tim Scrips.

There is a Scripps Research Institute and Tim Barnett is there. And, the fact that you don't know about the Scripps Research Institute tells me all I need to know about the veracity of much of anything you post.

Great. Don't address the actual issue, instead, let's talk about my brain farts, I would expect nothing more from you

Thanks for the "debate".

When you can answer a question I ask, let me know.

They still stand.

And, it is very interesting that you aren't familiar with Scripps.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud

You want facts....well, let them bitch slap you in the face.

Hell, you don't believe the rest of these poster, so the only thing I can bring is the evidence you requested...anything more that I say, you won't believe.

Wow, a big oil funded global warming skeptic is making accusations of fraud, how surprising.

if anything, the presence of a known skeptic on the IPCC is indicative of an intent to include a cross section of all scientists who study the climate, regardless of their view

So, in your belief, research scientists DO sellout their integrity based on who funds them?

Interesting.

That never happens. Or it always happens. Obviously.

 

[Si modo]

Wow, a big oil funded global warming skeptic is making accusations of fraud, how surprising.

if anything, the presence of a known skeptic on the IPCC is indicative of an intent to include a cross section of all scientists who study the climate, regardless of their view

So, in your belief, research scientists DO sellout their integrity based on who funds them?

Interesting.

That never happens. Or it always happens. Obviously.

So, in your belief, research scientists DO sellout their integrity based on who funds them?

Interesting.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What the hell?
Are you under the influence of something?

There is no Tim Scrips.

There is a Scripps Research Institute and Tim Barnett is there. And, the fact that you don't know about the Scripps Research Institute tells me all I need to know about the veracity of much of anything you post.

Great. Don't address the actual issue, instead, let's talk about my brain farts, I would expect nothing more from you

Thanks for the "debate".

When you can answer a question I ask, let me know.

They still stand.

"What the hell?" isn't a question that needs answering.

And, it is very interesting that you aren't familiar with Scripps.

We all know you're the smartest person here because you are so familiar with the Scripps Research Institute - and in fact you know everything - but its interesting you would expect a astrophysicist to be familiar with a biomedical research group. The two fields are miles and miles apart.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So, in your belief, research scientists DO sellout their integrity based on who funds them?

Interesting.

That never happens. Or it always happens. Obviously.

So, in your belief, research scientists DO sellout their integrity based on who funds them?

Interesting.

No NEVER. I mean ALWAYS.

 

[Meister]

Great. Don't address the actual issue, instead, let's talk about my brain farts, I would expect nothing more from you

Thanks for the "debate".

When you can answer a question I ask, let me know.

They still stand.

"What the hell?" isn't a question that needs answering.

And, it is very interesting that you aren't familiar with Scripps.

We all know you're the smartest person here because you are so familiar with the Scripps Research Institute - and in fact you know everything - but its interesting you would expect a astrophysicist to be familiar with a biomedical research group. The two fields are miles and miles apart.

 

[Si modo]

That never happens. Or it always happens. Obviously.

So, in your belief, research scientists DO sellout their integrity based on who funds them?

Interesting.

No NEVER. I mean ALWAYS.

And, obviously you are feigning ANY interest in a debate.

You are a troll.

That's a shame, IF you are what you say you are.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So, in your belief, research scientists DO sellout their integrity based on who funds them?

Interesting.

No NEVER. I mean ALWAYS.

And, obviously you are feigning ANY interest in a debate.

You are a troll.

That's a shame, IF you are what you say you are.

There's no debate. Someone posted a bunch of emails and that in and of itself constitutes proof of wrongdoing. Scientists shouldn't be sending emails, its unscientific.

 

[Si modo]

No NEVER. I mean ALWAYS.

And, obviously you are feigning ANY interest in a debate.

You are a troll.

That's a shame, IF you are what you say you are.

There's no debate. Someone posted a bunch of emails and that in and of itself constitutes proof of wrongdoing. Scientists shouldn't be sending emails, its unscientific.

There is no debate with trolls like you.

Or, you are simply a moron who really thinks that was what folks said.

Neg for polluting the thread with troll posts.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And, obviously you are feigning ANY interest in a debate.

You are a troll.

That's a shame, IF you are what you say you are.

There's no debate. Someone posted a bunch of emails and that in and of itself constitutes proof of wrongdoing. Scientists shouldn't be sending emails, its unscientific.

There is no debate with trolls like you.

Or, you are simply a moron who really thinks that was what folks said.

Neg for polluting the thread with troll posts.

Pssst. Guess what? I delete emails between myself and my advisor and other researchers all the time - when my email box gets cluttered. I must be concealing evidence!!!

 

[Si modo]

There's no debate. Someone posted a bunch of emails and that in and of itself constitutes proof of wrongdoing. Scientists shouldn't be sending emails, its unscientific.

There is no debate with trolls like you.

Or, you are simply a moron who really thinks that was what folks said.

Neg for polluting the thread with troll posts.

Pssst. Guess what? I delete emails between myself and my advisor and other researchers all the time - when my email box gets cluttered. I must be concealing evidence!!!

Only morons or trolls argue strawmen.

Just so you know.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There is no debate with trolls like you.

Or, you are simply a moron who really thinks that was what folks said.

Neg for polluting the thread with troll posts.

Pssst. Guess what? I delete emails between myself and my advisor and other researchers all the time - when my email box gets cluttered. I must be concealing evidence!!!

Only morons or trolls argue strawmen.

Just so you know.

All I've seen you argue with is links.

 

[Si modo]

Pssst. Guess what? I delete emails between myself and my advisor and other researchers all the time - when my email box gets cluttered. I must be concealing evidence!!!

Only morons or trolls argue strawmen.

Just so you know.

All I've seen you argue with is links.

And, my questions to you still stand, Dodge.

I understand why a hack and a troll would dodge them, though.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Only morons or trolls argue strawmen.

Just so you know.

All I've seen you argue with is links.

And, my questions to you still stand, Dodge.

I understand why a hack and a troll would dodge them, though.

So do mine, and I have a similar understanding of trolls and dodging.

 

[wirebender]

I don't believe you're applying those laws correctly to this situation. Please show how it isn't possible for a photon re-emitted by a CO2 molecule to travel towards earth. DO NOT use mathematical formulas in your answer. If you're correct, you should be able to lay this to rest solely by describing the mechanism.

I already have konradv. Repeating over and over for you is not going to help you understand it any better though. I have explained it to you in the simplest terms that I could think of and you still didn't get it.

The second law of thermodynamics states: "It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

The earth is warmer than the atmosphere. Which part of "not possible" and "will not" do you believe means "possible" for heat to flow from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth in direct contradiction to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

 

[westwall]

What are you talking about with this "Go back to basics" jibber jabber? A new neighborhood just went up and we have to power these homes. Is it your position that we should just fire up a new coal turbine and assume that no damage is being done?

That's the question. You're all saying consensus is unscientific and exaggerated. So while whatever 'real' science that will ultimately meet your standard of proof is being performed, do we base our current activities under the assumption that there is no AGW, or do we take AGW under consideration?

The question doesn't get any more 'basic' than that.

The problem with running off and fixing a problem that doesn't exist is the unintended consequences. I keep bringing up the MTBE fiasco because it is the most recent example of the faultiness of your type of thinking. Sometimes it really is the best policy to do nothing.

You don't believe that. As Wirebender pointed out. The policies you support lead to increased highway fatalities and there is no need for them. The policies you support lead to increased deaths in the Third World, and there is no need for them. The policies you support lead to increased hunger in the world, and there is no need for that.

Do you see a pattern developing? The one thing that is happening amidst all the carnage and death is governmental power is expanding. At the expense of innocent lives all over the world and provable environmental damage that need not occur. You seem to believe the mantra that green energy is clean.

It's demonstrably not. Why do you think the solar companies are building their plants in the third world? It's so they can keep the manpower costs down and not have to worry about the US and the First Worlds environmental regulations. Solar panel construction is one of the most polluting industries on the planet, you don't see it, thus you can ignore it.

I think that's as close to an answer as I'm going to get, and it appears to be "No, the possibility of AGW should not be taken into account when making decisions." That's precisely the attitude I can't wrap my head around.

And of course I knew it was your answer. I'd like to hear it from Si Modo, who doesn't beat the "It's fake" drum so much as the "We're just not sure" drum. (I'd ask you privately Modo but you seem to have that feature turned off)

Way back in the early 80's when the observations correlated quite well with the AGW hypothesis there was a huge push to implement regulation. Many regs WERE passed. That's one of the reasons many companies relocated to the Third World in the first place.

Now, after 30 years of ever increasing CO2 and new technologies that can measure things that previously were un-measurable we have changed our understanding of how climate works. We now realise that CO2 CAN'T be the driver of global temperatures. In addition to the theoretical problems with CO2 as the driver, there is a wealth of empirical data that confirms increased CO2 is a result of warming and not the other way around.

So, here we are, the central thesis of the AGW hypothesis has been proven false, and to add insult to injury, the world has begun cooling down (relatively) in defiance of all the prognostications of the AGW supporters.

That leads us to the CLIMATEGATE emails. They show widespread scientific fraud by a very few highly placed scientists who, through their positions, have altered data that didn't support their theory, corrupted the peer review process by preventing publication of dissenting studies, ignored and obstructed legitimate FOIA requests, and finally have actively subverted the press and MSM in an effort to control the message that is broadcast to the masses.

What has been surprising to me in the release of emails is just how few were actually driving the bus. I thought that there was a majority of climatologists just going along to get along promulgating bad science without conscience. I am relieved to see that they actually were concerned about the poor science being disseminated, I am also however, saddened that they remained silent.

This is a blight on science that will take decades to repair.

 

[wirebender]

The correlation alone is "Something," and most agree something profound. I'm no scientist but I don't think they make this shit up. You're unconvinced, and always will be, because you seek evidence for your own foregone conclusion. Nothing will meet your standard of proof, you will just add some more clever adjectives whereby you can technically satiate your own POV.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. The laws of physics are the only sources of support for causation in the case of AGW alarmism and the laws of physics neither predict, nor support the claims being made. Accusing me of having foregone conclusions does not alter the fact that climate science can not name a law of physics upon which to base their claims. Without the support of the laws of physics, they have nothing.

'The Truth' is an op-ed on Forbes.com? Again, seeking evidence from nefarious sources to support your own foregone conclusion. If you did an honest search to obtain information on the topic, you'd find that dissent within the scientific community is virtually non-existent.

The truth is what it is without regard to the source. The consensus is a manufactured hoax in and of itself.

Whatever. If we had two earths I'd be happy to let you and yours have one of them and we "Alarmists" could have the other, then there'd be no reason to have the discussion in the public sphere. Of course we don't however, so society's decisions affect all of us.

Whatever? Great answer. Of course since neither you, nor all of climate science has an answer for the big question, I guess you are doing the best you can. Running about wringing your hands and telling me the sky is falling when there exists no hard evidence to support your claims however, is not a reason to take you seriously.

IMO the 'Hoaxers' such as yourself are going to look as silly as moon landing hoaxers in a few years, but I can stipulate that I could be wrong. Can you?

Unless you can name a law of physics that supports the claims, no.

No, you can't, as you've just shown you believe any human activities should weigh decisions with the assumption that you're right; Meanwhile, most of the scientific community says "You're wrong,"

Not most of the scientific community. A very few high profile, highly political, highly connected scientists say that I am wrong and they, like you have no answer for my basic question. The bulk of the scientific community are working scientists who do not depend on grant money to buy their daily bread and very few of them are on the AGW bandwagon. The consensus is smoke and mirrors and consensus is politics, not science.

 

[westwall]

It was posted already.

But, it is clear you are willing to sell out scientific integrity for partisan hackery.

Crystal.

It was posted already? Really? Because its not here:

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

Where does Tim Scrips accuse anyone of "scientific misconduct" in this email? he doesn't.

What the hell?
Are you under the influence of something?

There is no Tim Scrips.

There is a Scripps Research Institute and Tim Barnett is there. And, the fact that you don't know about the Scripps Research Institute tells me all I need to know about the veracity of much of anything you post.

poopiehead is a fraud. He is at best a high school student. Don't waste time with him, he is merely a troll of the first order.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't believe you're applying those laws correctly to this situation. Please show how it isn't possible for a photon re-emitted by a CO2 molecule to travel towards earth. DO NOT use mathematical formulas in your answer. If you're correct, you should be able to lay this to rest solely by describing the mechanism.

I already have konradv. Repeating over and over for you is not going to help you understand it any better though. I have explained it to you in the simplest terms that I could think of and you still didn't get it.

The second law of thermodynamics states: "It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

The earth is warmer than the atmosphere. Which part of "not possible" and "will not" do you believe means "possible" for heat to flow from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth in direct contradiction to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

See what you're missing above

 

[westwall]

Great. Don't address the actual issue, instead, let's talk about my brain farts, I would expect nothing more from you

Thanks for the "debate".

When you can answer a question I ask, let me know.

They still stand.

"What the hell?" isn't a question that needs answering.

And, it is very interesting that you aren't familiar with Scripps.

We all know you're the smartest person here because you are so familiar with the Scripps Research Institute - and in fact you know everything - but its interesting you would expect a astrophysicist to be familiar with a biomedical research group. The two fields are miles and miles apart.

Yeah right astrophysicist Sure buddy sure..... I'm surprised you could spell it, did you need help with that one?