how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[orogenicman]

As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?

I want all the "ethical" deniers here to come out of the closet and state irrefutably that they believe that hacking government e-mail servers, stealing confidential communications, and publishing them on the internet is a violation of national and international laws, and has no place in scientific discourse. Let us see how many actually believe that such behavior is reprehensible, illegal, and unethical, and call for the illegal practice to stop. (This should be interesting).

That's right.. Blame the Post Office for delivering the bad news..

WHO exactly did the hacking? You don't know -- do ya? T'was not a random attack. Could have been done in concert with a "whistle-blower" member of the Climate Science community --- couldn't it?

Are whistle-blowers criminals? Do they need evidence to back up their assertions? Of course they do..

Much good came of this exposure..

The post office didn't open George's mail and then tell Paul that based on letters they opened, that George has been sleeping with his wife (even though George has only written to Paul's wife to tell her that she was concerned about Paul's erratic behavior at work). Because if the post office had done that, that would have been just as illegal, and just as unethical as what the deniers have done.

So, we can count you out as an "ethical denier". Got it. That's one down. Anyone else?

 

[orogenicman]

As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?

I want all the "ethical" deniers here to come out of the closet and state irrefutably that they believe that hacking government e-mail servers, stealing confidential communications, and publishing them on the internet is a violation of national and international laws, and has no place in scientific discourse. Let us see how many actually believe that such behavior is reprehensible, illegal, and unethical, and call for the illegal practice to stop. (This should be interesting).

Has anyone here said it was legal? Are you equally offended when govt confidential material is hacked and released? What is your opinion on Gleick committing fraud against Heartland? What did you think of the forged document Gleick added to the real material? At least Climategate only released real documents, not forgeries whose sole purpose was to slander. Who is worse in your opinion, Gleick or the Climategate hacker?

Should Gleick be allowed to keep his honoured positions with the AGU and other organizations? What would you consider appropriate punishment for the hacker, if he had been identified?

So it is okay that national and international laws are broken, as long as the stolen documents are real. Hmm. So we can also count you out as one of the "ethical deniers". Got it. Anyone else?

 

[westwall]

As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?

I want all the "ethical" deniers here to come out of the closet and state irrefutably that they believe that hacking government e-mail servers, stealing confidential communications, and publishing them on the internet is a violation of national and international laws, and has no place in scientific discourse. Let us see how many actually believe that such behavior is reprehensible, illegal, and unethical, and call for the illegal practice to stop. (This should be interesting).

Hell no. The person who released this evidence of the corruption ENDEMIC in the climatological field, it's patent corruption of the peer review process, and it's wholesale fraud is in the finest traditions of the WHISTLEBLOWING tradition. It wasn't hacked as you very well know, it was RELEASED by an insider who had had enough of the fraud.

You pathetic assholes have your panties in a bunch because you GOT CAUGHT LYING...and instead of addressing the fraud you instead attack the whistleblower.

Fuck you. And fuck your fraudulent, unethical, selves. You deserve every negative consequence from your perversion of the scientific method and science in general. I despise pricks like you who have set the scientific community back decades because of your criminal enterprise.

 

[westwall]

As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?

I want all the "ethical" deniers here to come out of the closet and state irrefutably that they believe that hacking government e-mail servers, stealing confidential communications, and publishing them on the internet is a violation of national and international laws, and has no place in scientific discourse. Let us see how many actually believe that such behavior is reprehensible, illegal, and unethical, and call for the illegal practice to stop. (This should be interesting).

Has anyone here said it was legal? Are you equally offended when govt confidential material is hacked and released? What is your opinion on Gleick committing fraud against Heartland? What did you think of the forged document Gleick added to the real material? At least Climategate only released real documents, not forgeries whose sole purpose was to slander. Who is worse in your opinion, Gleick or the Climategate hacker?

Should Gleick be allowed to keep his honoured positions with the AGU and other organizations? What would you consider appropriate punishment for the hacker, if he had been identified?

So it is okay that national and international laws are broken, as long as the stolen documents are real. Hmm. So we can also count you out as one of the "ethical deniers". Got it. Anyone else?

How about you "ethical" types who committed a felony by impersonating someone else to gain access to the files of the right wing think tank a year or so ago? That was outright criminal behavior.

So, once again, fuck you and your unethical bullshit. You reap what you sow asshole.

 

[flacaltenn]

As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?

I want all the "ethical" deniers here to come out of the closet and state irrefutably that they believe that hacking government e-mail servers, stealing confidential communications, and publishing them on the internet is a violation of national and international laws, and has no place in scientific discourse. Let us see how many actually believe that such behavior is reprehensible, illegal, and unethical, and call for the illegal practice to stop. (This should be interesting).

That's right.. Blame the Post Office for delivering the bad news..

WHO exactly did the hacking? You don't know -- do ya? T'was not a random attack. Could have been done in concert with a "whistle-blower" member of the Climate Science community --- couldn't it?

Are whistle-blowers criminals? Do they need evidence to back up their assertions? Of course they do..

Much good came of this exposure..

The post office didn't open George's mail and then tell Paul that based on letters they opened, that George has been sleeping with his wife (even though George has only written to Paul's wife to tell her that she was concerned about Paul's erratic behavior at work). Because if the post office had done that, that would have been just as illegal, and just as unethical as what the deniers have done.

So, we can count you out as an "ethical denier". Got it. That's one down. Anyone else?

Don't believe this was random criminal act.. There are a lot more prestigious targets than the "climate research center". I think that might get you jeered by fellow random hackers..

Whoa.. Answer the questions.. Is it likely this was encouraged by whistle-blowers in the climate science community? Are whistle-blowers criminals when they reveal "protected" information?

"one down" ---- very funny in a Monty Python sort of way dude.

 

[IanC]

As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?

I want all the "ethical" deniers here to come out of the closet and state irrefutably that they believe that hacking government e-mail servers, stealing confidential communications, and publishing them on the internet is a violation of national and international laws, and has no place in scientific discourse. Let us see how many actually believe that such behavior is reprehensible, illegal, and unethical, and call for the illegal practice to stop. (This should be interesting).

Has anyone here said it was legal? Are you equally offended when govt confidential material is hacked and released? What is your opinion on Gleick committing fraud against Heartland? What did you think of the forged document Gleick added to the real material? At least Climategate only released real documents, not forgeries whose sole purpose was to slander. Who is worse in your opinion, Gleick or the Climategate hacker?

Should Gleick be allowed to keep his honoured positions with the AGU and other organizations? What would you consider appropriate punishment for the hacker, if he had been identified?

So it is okay that national and international laws are broken, as long as the stolen documents are real. Hmm. So we can also count you out as one of the "ethical deniers". Got it. Anyone else?

I addressed your question. Will you give your opinion on Gleick, and perhaps tell us which hacking crime you consider more egregious.

 

[gslack]

Energy from the surface.. Jesus man, they held your hand and helped you and you still fight it..

What the hell "media" do you think you are referring to moron?... The sun heats the surface, the heated surface warms the atmosphere, and convection does it's thing..

Dude seriously, you can't be anymore ignorant..

Uh, gslack, that is exactly what he said. Just in terms that a scientist would use. And you forgot the ocean in your little speil. The ignorance demonstrated here is yours, ignorance concerning science and language.

Slackerman has to be regarded as a special case of scientifically retarded. He often agrees with me and doesn't realize it. He is a professional disagreer too. He likes to hang around scientific circles hoping that some will rub off, but when that does happen he's not alert enough to realize it.

Sad case.

LOL, "a professional disagreer" ? ROFL and this isn't a scientific circle so long as you're posting here.. No defense for your stupidity? LOL, of course not now you will either bury the embarassing posts or pretend you didn't just try and make upyour own version of conservation of energy..

What a pathetic display... Dude you couldn't even make this crap up..

 

[gslack]

One of the favors that the Slackster does for me with every post is his tag line. He believes that it insults me when in fact it insults him. He's just not able to understand the sense that those two statements make.

For instance, I might say that "John Brown's life is over". Slackster would like to sell that as meaning the same as "life is over".

The question of course being what chance does a person not able to understand that simple logic have in the complex world of science?

Really? ROFL, please explain how you saying the science is over and then the science is never over, in the same thread is anything like your claim Bullshitter...

Busted being an idiot and your excuse is to claim the idiotic shit you said wasn't really idiotic because you say it isn't..

Please keep talking socko, watching the warmers try and hold your juvenile hand and try to dig your foot of your stupid mouth with every other post is priceless..

I don't what gives you warmers more work, the constant screw-ups from your pseudo-scientists, or constantly trying to hold your ignorant hand.. Either way it is hilarious..

 

[orogenicman]

Has anyone here said it was legal? Are you equally offended when govt confidential material is hacked and released? What is your opinion on Gleick committing fraud against Heartland? What did you think of the forged document Gleick added to the real material? At least Climategate only released real documents, not forgeries whose sole purpose was to slander. Who is worse in your opinion, Gleick or the Climategate hacker?

Should Gleick be allowed to keep his honoured positions with the AGU and other organizations? What would you consider appropriate punishment for the hacker, if he had been identified?

So it is okay that national and international laws are broken, as long as the stolen documents are real. Hmm. So we can also count you out as one of the "ethical deniers". Got it. Anyone else?

I addressed your question. Will you give your opinion on Gleick, and perhaps tell us which hacking crime you consider more egregious.

I consider any and all hacking for any purpose to be unethical, and illegal. And by the way, so does the law.

 

[IanC]

So it is okay that national and international laws are broken, as long as the stolen documents are real. Hmm. So we can also count you out as one of the "ethical deniers". Got it. Anyone else?

I addressed your question. Will you give your opinion on Gleick, and perhaps tell us which hacking crime you consider more egregious.

I consider any and all hacking for any purpose to be unethical, and illegal. And by the way, so does the law.

Do you think Gleick should have been punished for his crime?

 

[orogenicman]

I addressed your question. Will you give your opinion on Gleick, and perhaps tell us which hacking crime you consider more egregious.

I consider any and all hacking for any purpose to be unethical, and illegal. And by the way, so does the law.

Do you think Gleick should have been punished for his crime?

I believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and that necessarily includes knowing what the charges are against oneself. Don't you?

 

[PMZ]

'' Much good came of this exposure.''

For instance?

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.

The science behind the findings of the IPCC have been scrutinized as much as any science ever. By scientists. There is no value in it being scrutinized by political hacks and science quacks who are incapable of contributing to the body of knowledge.

 

[PMZ]

The evidence of energy imbalance is sketchy at best, and is dependant on assumptions made in computer models that produce values that are smaller than the error bars. We have been seeing many systems, such as GRACE, that are being scaled back to more conservative numbers as more data is available to calibrate the calculations.

There is nothing at all sketchy about the behavior of GHGs nor their increasing concentration in our atmosphere. And the result of previous times in earth's history when they were there.

You are very much like konradv, in as much that you have taken one piece of information and have given it far too much importance. The co2 effect is real but much smaller than you think.

The IPCC often uses legitimate science but the directio and conclusions it comes to are not the only ones consistent with the evidence.

You think that I and other skeptics are trying to'trick you' but you haveto invent implausible reasons for our actions. The vast majority of skeptics not only get no recompense but actually pay a price for their position.

My problem with you is that you advertise yourself as non-objective. Inclined to disbelieve the science rather than trust science to find the truth. I don't believe that there is any value to science from non-objective people.

Plus you have not been able to in any way refute the most basic science of the conservation of energy. When more energy comes in to any system than goes out it has to warm. You seem to believe that energy in fact can be destroyed.

 

[PMZ]

As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?

I want all the "ethical" deniers here to come out of the closet and state irrefutably that they believe that hacking government e-mail servers, stealing confidential communications, and publishing them on the internet is a violation of national and international laws, and has no place in scientific discourse. Let us see how many actually believe that such behavior is reprehensible, illegal, and unethical, and call for the illegal practice to stop. (This should be interesting).

Hell no. The person who released this evidence of the corruption ENDEMIC in the climatological field, it's patent corruption of the peer review process, and it's wholesale fraud is in the finest traditions of the WHISTLEBLOWING tradition. It wasn't hacked as you very well know, it was RELEASED by an insider who had had enough of the fraud.

You pathetic assholes have your panties in a bunch because you GOT CAUGHT LYING...and instead of addressing the fraud you instead attack the whistleblower.

Fuck you. And fuck your fraudulent, unethical, selves. You deserve every negative consequence from your perversion of the scientific method and science in general. I despise pricks like you who have set the scientific community back decades because of your criminal enterprise.

Science has been going on for a long time with no help from the likes of you. To propose that climate science is the lone exception to the ethics that all science requires is bizarre to say the least.

 

[gslack]

There is nothing at all sketchy about the behavior of GHGs nor their increasing concentration in our atmosphere. And the result of previous times in earth's history when they were there.

You are very much like konradv, in as much that you have taken one piece of information and have given it far too much importance. The co2 effect is real but much smaller than you think.

The IPCC often uses legitimate science but the directio and conclusions it comes to are not the only ones consistent with the evidence.

You think that I and other skeptics are trying to'trick you' but you haveto invent implausible reasons for our actions. The vast majority of skeptics not only get no recompense but actually pay a price for their position.

My problem with you is that you advertise yourself as non-objective. Inclined to disbelieve the science rather than trust science to find the truth. I don't believe that there is any value to science from non-objective people.

Plus you have not been able to in any way refute the most basic science of the conservation of energy. When more energy comes in to any system than goes out it has to warm. You seem to believe that energy in fact can be destroyed.

Dude you just tried tore-write the law of conservation of energy in a previous post in this thread.. Going so far as to write whatever you felt like and trying topass it off as factual..

Give us a break already.. You're either high, or a kid... Too much BS that goes nowhere in your posts to be taken seriously...

 

[orogenicman]

As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?

I want all the "ethical" deniers here to come out of the closet and state irrefutably that they believe that hacking government e-mail servers, stealing confidential communications, and publishing them on the internet is a violation of national and international laws, and has no place in scientific discourse. Let us see how many actually believe that such behavior is reprehensible, illegal, and unethical, and call for the illegal practice to stop. (This should be interesting).

Hell no. The person who released this evidence of the corruption ENDEMIC in the climatological field, it's patent corruption of the peer review process, and it's wholesale fraud is in the finest traditions of the WHISTLEBLOWING tradition. It wasn't hacked as you very well know, it was RELEASED by an insider who had had enough of the fraud.

You pathetic assholes have your panties in a bunch because you GOT CAUGHT LYING...and instead of addressing the fraud you instead attack the whistleblower.

Fuck you. And fuck your fraudulent, unethical, selves. You deserve every negative consequence from your perversion of the scientific method and science in general. I despise pricks like you who have set the scientific community back decades because of your criminal enterprise.

Science has been going on for a long time with no help from the likes of you. To propose that climate science is the lone exception to the ethics that all science requires is bizarre to say the least.

I did say it would be interesting, didn't I? That's three strikes against the three stooges, eh?

 

[PMZ]

I don't know who started the notion that loud politics trumps sound science, but he'll go down in history as the father of America's dark ages.

 

[westwall]

I consider any and all hacking for any purpose to be unethical, and illegal. And by the way, so does the law.

Do you think Gleick should have been punished for his crime?

I believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and that necessarily includes knowing what the charges are against oneself. Don't you?

He fully confessed to his criminal behavior.

 

[westwall]

As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?

I want all the "ethical" deniers here to come out of the closet and state irrefutably that they believe that hacking government e-mail servers, stealing confidential communications, and publishing them on the internet is a violation of national and international laws, and has no place in scientific discourse. Let us see how many actually believe that such behavior is reprehensible, illegal, and unethical, and call for the illegal practice to stop. (This should be interesting).

Hell no. The person who released this evidence of the corruption ENDEMIC in the climatological field, it's patent corruption of the peer review process, and it's wholesale fraud is in the finest traditions of the WHISTLEBLOWING tradition. It wasn't hacked as you very well know, it was RELEASED by an insider who had had enough of the fraud.

You pathetic assholes have your panties in a bunch because you GOT CAUGHT LYING...and instead of addressing the fraud you instead attack the whistleblower.

Fuck you. And fuck your fraudulent, unethical, selves. You deserve every negative consequence from your perversion of the scientific method and science in general. I despise pricks like you who have set the scientific community back decades because of your criminal enterprise.

Science has been going on for a long time with no help from the likes of you. To propose that climate science is the lone exception to the ethics that all science requires is bizarre to say the least.

Climatology is the modern version of Lysenkoism.

 

[orogenicman]

Do you think Gleick should have been punished for his crime?

I believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and that necessarily includes knowing what the charges are against oneself. Don't you?

He fully confessed to his criminal behavior.

If it is criminal behavior we are talking about,. what are the charges? When will he appear in court?