How you can tell "Global Warming" (aka: Climate Change, Climate Disruption) is a scam

[westwall]

meaning, I can't find anything to back my claim, so I now will just post some mumbo jumbo. Not discuss the Congress requests or any other subject.

Not mumbo jumbo. Just acknowledging the fact that right wing radio has made up your mind, and repeating the same facts that you have doubtlessly heard many times will be ignored in favor of your conspiracy theories. Believe what you choose. Fewer people are agreeing with you every day.

You mean how you ignore the facts we present? The ones that have been peer reviewed as well but are the opposite of what your computer MODELS claim? Funny how you believe science fiction, but ignore actual facts. How do you accomplish that bit of reasoning?

Sorry, but one anonymous RWNJ thanking another anonymous RWNJ's post is hardly peer review.

Actually that is the behavior (proven BTW) of the global warming alarmists. They have been perverting the peer review process for decades. They were finally caught. And you guys turn a blind eye to that unethical behavior. Why?

Believe any conspiracy theory you want. If you chose to ignore what is believed by most qualified scientists, there is nothing I might add to convince you.

Poor widdle Bulldog. Defending the indefensible to the bitter end. Here you go sweetheart... This was the famed Polar Bear study. Peer reviewed by the authors WIFE! No conspiricy theory, actual cold hard fact. A fact that makes you look like a complete 'tard.

Hello 'tard!



"Monnett, who currently works as a wildlife biologist for ID's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, and who also manages 50 million in research studies there, is currently the primary target of the investigation. Disclosure of Monnett's "personal relationships and preparation of scope of work," is also of primary concern because the peer review process used in publishing his landmark polar bear study appears to have been fraudulent as well.

According to Human Events, Monnett's wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as lead researcher of another questionable polar bear study, Andrew Derocher from the University of Alberta in Canada, both peer reviewed Monnett's polar bear study. Having one's wife review a study is, of course, an obvious conflict of interest. And Derocher, whose own polar bear study is currently under review, also happens to have been acquired by Monnett, which calls into question the integrity of his review as well.

Learn more: Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

 

[depotoo]

Seriously, you didn't just say that.

meaning, I can't find anything to back my claim, so I now will just post some mumbo jumbo. Not discuss the Congress requests or any other subject.

Not mumbo jumbo. Just acknowledging the fact that right wing radio has made up your mind, and repeating the same facts that you have doubtlessly heard many times will be ignored in favor of your conspiracy theories. Believe what you choose. Fewer people are agreeing with you every day.

You mean how you ignore the facts we present? The ones that have been peer reviewed as well but are the opposite of what your computer MODELS claim? Funny how you believe science fiction, but ignore actual facts. How do you accomplish that bit of reasoning?

Sorry, but one anonymous RWNJ thanking another anonymous RWNJ's post is hardly peer review.

isn't that peer review? The good old boys club, you scratch my back I'll scratch yours, oh wait, that is the peer review for the liberal non provers, the ones who are afraid to show their work in fear of being exposed. hhahahahhahahahhahahahahahahaha.

Go congress, get them there emails from the gang.

No, that isn't peer review, but it does illustrate your lack of knowledge of how things really work.

 

[BULLDOG]

Not mumbo jumbo. Just acknowledging the fact that right wing radio has made up your mind, and repeating the same facts that you have doubtlessly heard many times will be ignored in favor of your conspiracy theories. Believe what you choose. Fewer people are agreeing with you every day.

You mean how you ignore the facts we present? The ones that have been peer reviewed as well but are the opposite of what your computer MODELS claim? Funny how you believe science fiction, but ignore actual facts. How do you accomplish that bit of reasoning?

Sorry, but one anonymous RWNJ thanking another anonymous RWNJ's post is hardly peer review.

Actually that is the behavior (proven BTW) of the global warming alarmists. They have been perverting the peer review process for decades. They were finally caught. And you guys turn a blind eye to that unethical behavior. Why?

Believe any conspiracy theory you want. If you chose to ignore what is believed by most qualified scientists, there is nothing I might add to convince you.

Poor widdle Bulldog. Defending the indefensible to the bitter end. Here you go sweetheart... This was the famed Polar Bear study. Peer reviewed by the authors WIFE! No conspiricy theory, actual cold hard fact. A fact that makes you look like a complete 'tard.

Hello 'tard!



"Monnett, who currently works as a wildlife biologist for ID's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, and who also manages 50 million in research studies there, is currently the primary target of the investigation. Disclosure of Monnett's "personal relationships and preparation of scope of work," is also of primary concern because the peer review process used in publishing his landmark polar bear study appears to have been fraudulent as well.

According to Human Events, Monnett's wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as lead researcher of another questionable polar bear study, Andrew Derocher from the University of Alberta in Canada, both peer reviewed Monnett's polar bear study. Having one's wife review a study is, of course, an obvious conflict of interest. And Derocher, whose own polar bear study is currently under review, also happens to have been acquired by Monnett, which calls into question the integrity of his review as well.

Learn more: Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

Perfect example of how peer review works. More than one peer looks at the research. Frauds and unscientific methods are soon exposed. The only ones who disagree with the consensus of man made global climate change are people paid by companies who have a vested interest in the outcome.

 

[depotoo]

Speaking of the fraud being exposed, why is this exposure not of value to you? Oh, that's right. It exposes the fraud you back up.

A poll was conducted amongst environmental scientists where they were asked whether or not they believed that global warming is due to human activity. According to the results of that poll, 97 percent agreed that it was caused by human activity. While this seems like a significant amount, the numbers are skewed. There were 10,257 scientists that were polled but only 77 of those actually replied to the poll. So, in actuality only 97 percent of those 77 respondents concluded that global warming was due to human activity, not 97 percent of the entire 10,000+ panel.

You mean how you ignore the facts we present? The ones that have been peer reviewed as well but are the opposite of what your computer MODELS claim? Funny how you believe science fiction, but ignore actual facts. How do you accomplish that bit of reasoning?

Sorry, but one anonymous RWNJ thanking another anonymous RWNJ's post is hardly peer review.

Actually that is the behavior (proven BTW) of the global warming alarmists. They have been perverting the peer review process for decades. They were finally caught. And you guys turn a blind eye to that unethical behavior. Why?

Believe any conspiracy theory you want. If you chose to ignore what is believed by most qualified scientists, there is nothing I might add to convince you.

Poor widdle Bulldog. Defending the indefensible to the bitter end. Here you go sweetheart... This was the famed Polar Bear study. Peer reviewed by the authors WIFE! No conspiricy theory, actual cold hard fact. A fact that makes you look like a complete 'tard.

Hello 'tard!



"Monnett, who currently works as a wildlife biologist for ID's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, and who also manages 50 million in research studies there, is currently the primary target of the investigation. Disclosure of Monnett's "personal relationships and preparation of scope of work," is also of primary concern because the peer review process used in publishing his landmark polar bear study appears to have been fraudulent as well.

According to Human Events, Monnett's wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as lead researcher of another questionable polar bear study, Andrew Derocher from the University of Alberta in Canada, both peer reviewed Monnett's polar bear study. Having one's wife review a study is, of course, an obvious conflict of interest. And Derocher, whose own polar bear study is currently under review, also happens to have been acquired by Monnett, which calls into question the integrity of his review as well.

Learn more: Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

Perfect example of how peer review works. More than one peer looks at the research. Frauds and unscientific methods are soon exposed. The only ones who disagree with the consensus of man made global climate change are people paid by companies who have a vested interest in the outcome.

 

[jc456]

You mean how you ignore the facts we present? The ones that have been peer reviewed as well but are the opposite of what your computer MODELS claim? Funny how you believe science fiction, but ignore actual facts. How do you accomplish that bit of reasoning?

Sorry, but one anonymous RWNJ thanking another anonymous RWNJ's post is hardly peer review.

Actually that is the behavior (proven BTW) of the global warming alarmists. They have been perverting the peer review process for decades. They were finally caught. And you guys turn a blind eye to that unethical behavior. Why?

Believe any conspiracy theory you want. If you chose to ignore what is believed by most qualified scientists, there is nothing I might add to convince you.

Poor widdle Bulldog. Defending the indefensible to the bitter end. Here you go sweetheart... This was the famed Polar Bear study. Peer reviewed by the authors WIFE! No conspiricy theory, actual cold hard fact. A fact that makes you look like a complete 'tard.

Hello 'tard!



"Monnett, who currently works as a wildlife biologist for ID's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, and who also manages 50 million in research studies there, is currently the primary target of the investigation. Disclosure of Monnett's "personal relationships and preparation of scope of work," is also of primary concern because the peer review process used in publishing his landmark polar bear study appears to have been fraudulent as well.

According to Human Events, Monnett's wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as lead researcher of another questionable polar bear study, Andrew Derocher from the University of Alberta in Canada, both peer reviewed Monnett's polar bear study. Having one's wife review a study is, of course, an obvious conflict of interest. And Derocher, whose own polar bear study is currently under review, also happens to have been acquired by Monnett, which calls into question the integrity of his review as well.

Learn more: Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

Perfect example of how peer review works. More than one peer looks at the research. Frauds and unscientific methods are soon exposed. The only ones who disagree with the consensus of man made global climate change are people paid by companies who have a vested interest in the outcome.

the clear definition of the leftists peer review buddy system. Thanks for explaining. But, we knew that already. See, science has passed the buddy system up. Now, please just post up any experiment that is scientific and defends CO2 as a monster. Any day bubba other wise it remains a 'scam'.

 

[Dot Com]

Who is the Chair of the committee 57Frank?

Rep. Lamar Smith: Campaign Finance/Money - Top Donors - Representative 2014 | OpenSecrets

 

[westwall]

You mean how you ignore the facts we present? The ones that have been peer reviewed as well but are the opposite of what your computer MODELS claim? Funny how you believe science fiction, but ignore actual facts. How do you accomplish that bit of reasoning?

Sorry, but one anonymous RWNJ thanking another anonymous RWNJ's post is hardly peer review.

Actually that is the behavior (proven BTW) of the global warming alarmists. They have been perverting the peer review process for decades. They were finally caught. And you guys turn a blind eye to that unethical behavior. Why?

Believe any conspiracy theory you want. If you chose to ignore what is believed by most qualified scientists, there is nothing I might add to convince you.

Poor widdle Bulldog. Defending the indefensible to the bitter end. Here you go sweetheart... This was the famed Polar Bear study. Peer reviewed by the authors WIFE! No conspiricy theory, actual cold hard fact. A fact that makes you look like a complete 'tard.

Hello 'tard!



"Monnett, who currently works as a wildlife biologist for ID's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, and who also manages 50 million in research studies there, is currently the primary target of the investigation. Disclosure of Monnett's "personal relationships and preparation of scope of work," is also of primary concern because the peer review process used in publishing his landmark polar bear study appears to have been fraudulent as well.

According to Human Events, Monnett's wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as lead researcher of another questionable polar bear study, Andrew Derocher from the University of Alberta in Canada, both peer reviewed Monnett's polar bear study. Having one's wife review a study is, of course, an obvious conflict of interest. And Derocher, whose own polar bear study is currently under review, also happens to have been acquired by Monnett, which calls into question the integrity of his review as well.

Learn more: Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

Perfect example of how peer review works. More than one peer looks at the research. Frauds and unscientific methods are soon exposed. The only ones who disagree with the consensus of man made global climate change are people paid by companies who have a vested interest in the outcome.

It took a SCEPTIC to find that particular bit of bullshit. And the warmists tried to hide it. And then they tried to defend it, and now, like you, they try and prop it up as an example of their good work when they were EXPOSED by those they hate.

So, who do you work for? No thinking reasonable person can have such a warped view of this subject. So, who do you work for?

 

[BULLDOG]

Speaking of the fraud being exposed, why is this exposure not of value to you? Oh, that's right. It exposes the fraud you back up.

A poll was conducted amongst environmental scientists where they were asked whether or not they believed that global warming is due to human activity. According to the results of that poll, 97 percent agreed that it was caused by human activity. While this seems like a significant amount, the numbers are skewed. There were 10,257 scientists that were polled but only 77 of those actually replied to the poll. So, in actuality only 97 percent of those 77 respondents concluded that global warming was due to human activity, not 97 percent of the entire 10,000+ panel.

Sorry, but one anonymous RWNJ thanking another anonymous RWNJ's post is hardly peer review.

Actually that is the behavior (proven BTW) of the global warming alarmists. They have been perverting the peer review process for decades. They were finally caught. And you guys turn a blind eye to that unethical behavior. Why?

Believe any conspiracy theory you want. If you chose to ignore what is believed by most qualified scientists, there is nothing I might add to convince you.

Poor widdle Bulldog. Defending the indefensible to the bitter end. Here you go sweetheart... This was the famed Polar Bear study. Peer reviewed by the authors WIFE! No conspiricy theory, actual cold hard fact. A fact that makes you look like a complete 'tard.

Hello 'tard!



"Monnett, who currently works as a wildlife biologist for ID's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, and who also manages 50 million in research studies there, is currently the primary target of the investigation. Disclosure of Monnett's "personal relationships and preparation of scope of work," is also of primary concern because the peer review process used in publishing his landmark polar bear study appears to have been fraudulent as well.

According to Human Events, Monnett's wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as lead researcher of another questionable polar bear study, Andrew Derocher from the University of Alberta in Canada, both peer reviewed Monnett's polar bear study. Having one's wife review a study is, of course, an obvious conflict of interest. And Derocher, whose own polar bear study is currently under review, also happens to have been acquired by Monnett, which calls into question the integrity of his review as well.

Learn more: Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

Perfect example of how peer review works. More than one peer looks at the research. Frauds and unscientific methods are soon exposed. The only ones who disagree with the consensus of man made global climate change are people paid by companies who have a vested interest in the outcome.

The exposure, if true, is certainly of value to me. Since I, like most people am not qualified in that particular field, I have to depend on the experts.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Speaking of the fraud being exposed, why is this exposure not of value to you? Oh, that's right. It exposes the fraud you back up.

A poll was conducted amongst environmental scientists where they were asked whether or not they believed that global warming is due to human activity. According to the results of that poll, 97 percent agreed that it was caused by human activity. While this seems like a significant amount, the numbers are skewed. There were 10,257 scientists that were polled but only 77 of those actually replied to the poll. So, in actuality only 97 percent of those 77 respondents concluded that global warming was due to human activity, not 97 percent of the entire 10,000+ panel.

Sorry, but one anonymous RWNJ thanking another anonymous RWNJ's post is hardly peer review.

Actually that is the behavior (proven BTW) of the global warming alarmists. They have been perverting the peer review process for decades. They were finally caught. And you guys turn a blind eye to that unethical behavior. Why?

Believe any conspiracy theory you want. If you chose to ignore what is believed by most qualified scientists, there is nothing I might add to convince you.

Poor widdle Bulldog. Defending the indefensible to the bitter end. Here you go sweetheart... This was the famed Polar Bear study. Peer reviewed by the authors WIFE! No conspiricy theory, actual cold hard fact. A fact that makes you look like a complete 'tard.

Hello 'tard!



"Monnett, who currently works as a wildlife biologist for ID's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, and who also manages 50 million in research studies there, is currently the primary target of the investigation. Disclosure of Monnett's "personal relationships and preparation of scope of work," is also of primary concern because the peer review process used in publishing his landmark polar bear study appears to have been fraudulent as well.

According to Human Events, Monnett's wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as lead researcher of another questionable polar bear study, Andrew Derocher from the University of Alberta in Canada, both peer reviewed Monnett's polar bear study. Having one's wife review a study is, of course, an obvious conflict of interest. And Derocher, whose own polar bear study is currently under review, also happens to have been acquired by Monnett, which calls into question the integrity of his review as well.

Learn more: Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

Perfect example of how peer review works. More than one peer looks at the research. Frauds and unscientific methods are soon exposed. The only ones who disagree with the consensus of man made global climate change are people paid by companies who have a vested interest in the outcome.

You have a link to this poll?

It is news to me.

 

[BULLDOG]

Sorry, but one anonymous RWNJ thanking another anonymous RWNJ's post is hardly peer review.

Actually that is the behavior (proven BTW) of the global warming alarmists. They have been perverting the peer review process for decades. They were finally caught. And you guys turn a blind eye to that unethical behavior. Why?

Believe any conspiracy theory you want. If you chose to ignore what is believed by most qualified scientists, there is nothing I might add to convince you.

Poor widdle Bulldog. Defending the indefensible to the bitter end. Here you go sweetheart... This was the famed Polar Bear study. Peer reviewed by the authors WIFE! No conspiricy theory, actual cold hard fact. A fact that makes you look like a complete 'tard.

Hello 'tard!



"Monnett, who currently works as a wildlife biologist for ID's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, and who also manages 50 million in research studies there, is currently the primary target of the investigation. Disclosure of Monnett's "personal relationships and preparation of scope of work," is also of primary concern because the peer review process used in publishing his landmark polar bear study appears to have been fraudulent as well.

According to Human Events, Monnett's wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as lead researcher of another questionable polar bear study, Andrew Derocher from the University of Alberta in Canada, both peer reviewed Monnett's polar bear study. Having one's wife review a study is, of course, an obvious conflict of interest. And Derocher, whose own polar bear study is currently under review, also happens to have been acquired by Monnett, which calls into question the integrity of his review as well.

Learn more: Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

Perfect example of how peer review works. More than one peer looks at the research. Frauds and unscientific methods are soon exposed. The only ones who disagree with the consensus of man made global climate change are people paid by companies who have a vested interest in the outcome.

It took a SCEPTIC to find that particular bit of bullshit. And the warmists tried to hide it. And then they tried to defend it, and now, like you, they try and prop it up as an example of their good work when they were EXPOSED by those they hate.

So, who do you work for? No thinking reasonable person can have such a warped view of this subject. So, who do you work for?

Because I acknowledge that I am not qualified to make those judgments, you think I must " work for somebody"? Why do RWNJs claim they know everything there is to know about everything?

 

[flacaltenn]

Remember when Congress wanted the discussion between Dick Cheney and oil company executives that led to the Bush Administration energy policy? YOUR president explained that it was required that those sorts of internal discussions had a required presumption of privacy.

You have no reason to believe that anyone is hiding anything. You DO have reason to believe that Smith's demands are unreasonable on several levels and, if he has a problem with Karl's paper, he needs to try to take on Karl's paper. Doing what he's doing simply tells all of us that he cannot. Asshole.

Its diffent now!!! IT JUST IS!!!

^ that OP CrusaderFrank . All the science is there. Whats the matter? Nothing there to bear bait the denier base with? Too bad, so sad.

Reminds me of Virginia's former Atty Gen'l trying to do the same thing. Predictably, the Courts did not decide in his favor

That inquiry was a follow-up to ClimateGate emails which were extremely enlightening as to the behind the scenes horseshit of blocking certain authors from publication, justifying misleading data preparation techniques and the like. And Mann was at the center of all that. This IS the same kind of inquiry. The STATES do not have the level of FOIA and document archiving that the Fed agencies do. And CONGRESS is entitled to make that inquiry..

Thanks for proving my proving my point. You people going after people in lieu of disproving the data.

You have that backasswards bub. Why am I not surprised. We have already shown you that the data presented by your hero's is crap. The pause is admitted to by the IPCC, the so called heat records are smaller than the instruments have the ability to measure. The CO2 is concentrated in the southern hemisphere, not the northern as your crap computer models show, etc. etc. etc. We have demonstrated repeatedly that the claims of your masters is either unfounded or absolutely false.

So, you all resort to Appeals to Authority, personal attacks, and outright lying.

in this thread? You people specifically debunk the report using sources? Where? And don't come back w/ the weak "you find it" like you did the other day. You have been around here long enough to know that if you make an assertion, the onus is on YOU to prove it w/ sources/links.

I will quote this again:

Agency won’t give GOP internal docs on climate research

NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton said the internal communications are confidential and not related to what Smith is trying to find out.

“We have provided data, all of which is publicly available online, supporting scientific research, and multiple in-person briefings,” she said.

Specifically refute the data from the report.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

You just missed that part Dottie. Ian and others of us have ALREADY posted threads on the work in question.
That's why nobody wants to spoon feed you the "debate" on the this farce from NOAA..

Go find the 2 or 4 threads on the topic...

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually that is the behavior (proven BTW) of the global warming alarmists. They have been perverting the peer review process for decades. They were finally caught. And you guys turn a blind eye to that unethical behavior. Why?

Believe any conspiracy theory you want. If you chose to ignore what is believed by most qualified scientists, there is nothing I might add to convince you.

Poor widdle Bulldog. Defending the indefensible to the bitter end. Here you go sweetheart... This was the famed Polar Bear study. Peer reviewed by the authors WIFE! No conspiricy theory, actual cold hard fact. A fact that makes you look like a complete 'tard.

Hello 'tard!



"Monnett, who currently works as a wildlife biologist for ID's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, and who also manages 50 million in research studies there, is currently the primary target of the investigation. Disclosure of Monnett's "personal relationships and preparation of scope of work," is also of primary concern because the peer review process used in publishing his landmark polar bear study appears to have been fraudulent as well.

According to Human Events, Monnett's wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as lead researcher of another questionable polar bear study, Andrew Derocher from the University of Alberta in Canada, both peer reviewed Monnett's polar bear study. Having one's wife review a study is, of course, an obvious conflict of interest. And Derocher, whose own polar bear study is currently under review, also happens to have been acquired by Monnett, which calls into question the integrity of his review as well.

Learn more: Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

Perfect example of how peer review works. More than one peer looks at the research. Frauds and unscientific methods are soon exposed. The only ones who disagree with the consensus of man made global climate change are people paid by companies who have a vested interest in the outcome.

It took a SCEPTIC to find that particular bit of bullshit. And the warmists tried to hide it. And then they tried to defend it, and now, like you, they try and prop it up as an example of their good work when they were EXPOSED by those they hate.

So, who do you work for? No thinking reasonable person can have such a warped view of this subject. So, who do you work for?

Because I acknowledge that I am not qualified to make those judgments, you think I must " work for somebody"? Why do RWNJs claim they know everything there is to know about everything?

Probably just because you're confused. First you claim no interest in the issues and NO ability to understand the science. Then you tell us that ONLY "climate scientists" can analyze or understand the essentials of the debate. But THEN -- You post a list of "Consensus" organizations where 90% of them have only 2 or 3% of the membership actually ENGAGING in climate science. The remainder being medical, materials, agricultural, or robotics, etc -- experts.. At LEAST you shouldn't be making those huge logic and reason contradictions -- EVEN IF -- your only argument is leaning on "authority"..

OR maybe you should realize that it really isn't that difficult to debate some of the climate issues as you think it is. And ANY of those scientists from "an Academy of Science" should be able to form an excellent opinion on the topic.

 

[Dot Com]

Remember when Congress wanted the discussion between Dick Cheney and oil company executives that led to the Bush Administration energy policy? YOUR president explained that it was required that those sorts of internal discussions had a required presumption of privacy.

You have no reason to believe that anyone is hiding anything. You DO have reason to believe that Smith's demands are unreasonable on several levels and, if he has a problem with Karl's paper, he needs to try to take on Karl's paper. Doing what he's doing simply tells all of us that he cannot. Asshole.

Its diffent now!!! IT JUST IS!!!

^ that OP CrusaderFrank . All the science is there. Whats the matter? Nothing there to bear bait the denier base with? Too bad, so sad.

Reminds me of Virginia's former Atty Gen'l trying to do the same thing. Predictably, the Courts did not decide in his favor

That inquiry was a follow-up to ClimateGate emails which were extremely enlightening as to the behind the scenes horseshit of blocking certain authors from publication, justifying misleading data preparation techniques and the like. And Mann was at the center of all that. This IS the same kind of inquiry. The STATES do not have the level of FOIA and document archiving that the Fed agencies do. And CONGRESS is entitled to make that inquiry..

Thanks for proving my proving my point. You people going after people in lieu of disproving the data.

You have that backasswards bub. Why am I not surprised. We have already shown you that the data presented by your hero's is crap. The pause is admitted to by the IPCC, the so called heat records are smaller than the instruments have the ability to measure. The CO2 is concentrated in the southern hemisphere, not the northern as your crap computer models show, etc. etc. etc. We have demonstrated repeatedly that the claims of your masters is either unfounded or absolutely false.

So, you all resort to Appeals to Authority, personal attacks, and outright lying.

in this thread? You people specifically debunk the report using sources? Where? And don't come back w/ the weak "you find it" like you did the other day. You have been around here long enough to know that if you make an assertion, the onus is on YOU to prove it w/ sources/links.

I will quote this again:

Agency won’t give GOP internal docs on climate research

NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton said the internal communications are confidential and not related to what Smith is trying to find out.

“We have provided data, all of which is publicly available online, supporting scientific research, and multiple in-person briefings,” she said.

Specifically refute the data from the report.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

You just missed that part Dottie. Ian and others of us have ALREADY posted threads on the work in question.
That's why nobody wants to spoon feed you the "debate" on the this farce from NOAA..

Go find the 2 or 4 threads on the topic...

I'm not on here 14 hrs/day and read EVERY denier thread. Debating rules are pretty straight forward, you make an assertion- you link it. Simple as that. The names not "Dottie" either.

 

[flacaltenn]

"Citing the confidentiality of the requested documents and the integrity of the scientific process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it won’t give Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) what he recently subpoenaed about the research."

Agency won’t give GOP internal docs on climate research

LOL!

Integrity? Temperatures have "integrity" that can't face the light of day?

Real scientists welcome debate and challenge, a scam artists claims "Consensus" calls a skeptic a "denier" then hides the data

the data was turned over, Frankie. a political party is not entitled to demand the internal communications of an agency.

but I guess it makes for a good whine...

benghaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzziiiiiiiiiiii

Not a political party --- It's CONGRESS. If you cared about the integrity of the nation, you'd wouldn't be fixated on WHICH party is doing it. Because it's just WRONG for Congress to lose oversight of this monstrous Government that's been created.

 

[BULLDOG]

Believe any conspiracy theory you want. If you chose to ignore what is believed by most qualified scientists, there is nothing I might add to convince you.

Poor widdle Bulldog. Defending the indefensible to the bitter end. Here you go sweetheart... This was the famed Polar Bear study. Peer reviewed by the authors WIFE! No conspiricy theory, actual cold hard fact. A fact that makes you look like a complete 'tard.

Hello 'tard!



"Monnett, who currently works as a wildlife biologist for ID's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, and who also manages 50 million in research studies there, is currently the primary target of the investigation. Disclosure of Monnett's "personal relationships and preparation of scope of work," is also of primary concern because the peer review process used in publishing his landmark polar bear study appears to have been fraudulent as well.

According to Human Events, Monnett's wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as lead researcher of another questionable polar bear study, Andrew Derocher from the University of Alberta in Canada, both peer reviewed Monnett's polar bear study. Having one's wife review a study is, of course, an obvious conflict of interest. And Derocher, whose own polar bear study is currently under review, also happens to have been acquired by Monnett, which calls into question the integrity of his review as well.

Learn more: Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

Perfect example of how peer review works. More than one peer looks at the research. Frauds and unscientific methods are soon exposed. The only ones who disagree with the consensus of man made global climate change are people paid by companies who have a vested interest in the outcome.

It took a SCEPTIC to find that particular bit of bullshit. And the warmists tried to hide it. And then they tried to defend it, and now, like you, they try and prop it up as an example of their good work when they were EXPOSED by those they hate.

So, who do you work for? No thinking reasonable person can have such a warped view of this subject. So, who do you work for?

Because I acknowledge that I am not qualified to make those judgments, you think I must " work for somebody"? Why do RWNJs claim they know everything there is to know about everything?

Probably just because you're confused. First you claim no interest in the issues and NO ability to understand the science. Then you tell us that ONLY "climate scientists" can analyze or understand the essentials of the debate. But THEN -- You post a list of "Consensus" organizations where 90% of them have only 2 or 3% of the membership actually ENGAGING in climate science. The remainder being medical, materials, agricultural, or robotics, etc -- experts.. At LEAST you shouldn't be making those huge logic and reason contradictions -- EVEN IF -- your only argument is leaning on "authority"..

OR maybe you should realize that it really isn't that difficult to debate some of the climate issues as you think it is. And ANY of those scientists from "an Academy of Science" should be able to form an excellent opinion on the topic.

I never said the subject wasn't interesting. I just said I am not qualified to evaluate all the data and come to a conclusion. I , like most other people, have to depend on credible experts for my understanding. I can believe people who have studied for decades and have formed a good reputation or some anonymous RWNJ whose claims can never be verified, and who also support several obvious conspiracy theories. It's not really that hard of a choice.

 

[flacaltenn]

Remember when Congress wanted the discussion between Dick Cheney and oil company executives that led to the Bush Administration energy policy? YOUR president explained that it was required that those sorts of internal discussions had a required presumption of privacy.

You have no reason to believe that anyone is hiding anything. You DO have reason to believe that Smith's demands are unreasonable on several levels and, if he has a problem with Karl's paper, he needs to try to take on Karl's paper. Doing what he's doing simply tells all of us that he cannot. Asshole.

Its diffent now!!! IT JUST IS!!!

That inquiry was a follow-up to ClimateGate emails which were extremely enlightening as to the behind the scenes horseshit of blocking certain authors from publication, justifying misleading data preparation techniques and the like. And Mann was at the center of all that. This IS the same kind of inquiry. The STATES do not have the level of FOIA and document archiving that the Fed agencies do. And CONGRESS is entitled to make that inquiry..

Thanks for proving my proving my point. You people going after people in lieu of disproving the data.

You have that backasswards bub. Why am I not surprised. We have already shown you that the data presented by your hero's is crap. The pause is admitted to by the IPCC, the so called heat records are smaller than the instruments have the ability to measure. The CO2 is concentrated in the southern hemisphere, not the northern as your crap computer models show, etc. etc. etc. We have demonstrated repeatedly that the claims of your masters is either unfounded or absolutely false.

So, you all resort to Appeals to Authority, personal attacks, and outright lying.

in this thread? You people specifically debunk the report using sources? Where? And don't come back w/ the weak "you find it" like you did the other day. You have been around here long enough to know that if you make an assertion, the onus is on YOU to prove it w/ sources/links.

I will quote this again:

Agency won’t give GOP internal docs on climate research

NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton said the internal communications are confidential and not related to what Smith is trying to find out.

“We have provided data, all of which is publicly available online, supporting scientific research, and multiple in-person briefings,” she said.

Specifically refute the data from the report.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

You just missed that part Dottie. Ian and others of us have ALREADY posted threads on the work in question.
That's why nobody wants to spoon feed you the "debate" on the this farce from NOAA..

Go find the 2 or 4 threads on the topic...

I'm not on here 14 hrs/day and read EVERY denier thread. Debating rules are pretty straight forward, you make an assertion- you link it. Simple as that. The names not "Dottie" either.

Can't search the Enviro Forum for those discussions? Are you lazy?? I know you're only real interest is who currently the Chair of that committee..

Here's ONE Duke Physicists Call Out NASA and NOAA's Adjustments as improbable.. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

There are 3 others -- go fetch after you read and comment in those threads and show an interest in the facts and issues.

 

[flacaltenn]

Poor widdle Bulldog. Defending the indefensible to the bitter end. Here you go sweetheart... This was the famed Polar Bear study. Peer reviewed by the authors WIFE! No conspiricy theory, actual cold hard fact. A fact that makes you look like a complete 'tard.

Hello 'tard!



"Monnett, who currently works as a wildlife biologist for ID's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, and who also manages 50 million in research studies there, is currently the primary target of the investigation. Disclosure of Monnett's "personal relationships and preparation of scope of work," is also of primary concern because the peer review process used in publishing his landmark polar bear study appears to have been fraudulent as well.

According to Human Events, Monnett's wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as lead researcher of another questionable polar bear study, Andrew Derocher from the University of Alberta in Canada, both peer reviewed Monnett's polar bear study. Having one's wife review a study is, of course, an obvious conflict of interest. And Derocher, whose own polar bear study is currently under review, also happens to have been acquired by Monnett, which calls into question the integrity of his review as well.

Learn more: Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

Perfect example of how peer review works. More than one peer looks at the research. Frauds and unscientific methods are soon exposed. The only ones who disagree with the consensus of man made global climate change are people paid by companies who have a vested interest in the outcome.

It took a SCEPTIC to find that particular bit of bullshit. And the warmists tried to hide it. And then they tried to defend it, and now, like you, they try and prop it up as an example of their good work when they were EXPOSED by those they hate.

So, who do you work for? No thinking reasonable person can have such a warped view of this subject. So, who do you work for?

Because I acknowledge that I am not qualified to make those judgments, you think I must " work for somebody"? Why do RWNJs claim they know everything there is to know about everything?

Probably just because you're confused. First you claim no interest in the issues and NO ability to understand the science. Then you tell us that ONLY "climate scientists" can analyze or understand the essentials of the debate. But THEN -- You post a list of "Consensus" organizations where 90% of them have only 2 or 3% of the membership actually ENGAGING in climate science. The remainder being medical, materials, agricultural, or robotics, etc -- experts.. At LEAST you shouldn't be making those huge logic and reason contradictions -- EVEN IF -- your only argument is leaning on "authority"..

OR maybe you should realize that it really isn't that difficult to debate some of the climate issues as you think it is. And ANY of those scientists from "an Academy of Science" should be able to form an excellent opinion on the topic.

I never said the subject wasn't interesting. I just said I am not qualified to evaluate all the data and come to a conclusion. I , like most other people, have to depend on credible experts for my understanding. I can believe people who have studied for decades and have formed a good reputation or some anonymous RWNJ whose claims can never be verified, and who also support several obvious conspiracy theories. It's not really that hard of a choice.

Then all I'm asking is to be consistent when you do those "appeals to authority". My position is most ANY SCIENTIST or people with science backgrounds (hi sch. Physics/Chem teachers, engineers, etc) are capable of reading and understanding this relatively simple science.

If this wasn't true -- there would be no Scientific American or Science or Spectrum magazines. And the phenomenal recent success of the "Ted Talks" on the web couldn't happen.. Most of the folks I've worked with have participated in MANY fields of application of science.

 

[westwall]

Actually that is the behavior (proven BTW) of the global warming alarmists. They have been perverting the peer review process for decades. They were finally caught. And you guys turn a blind eye to that unethical behavior. Why?

Believe any conspiracy theory you want. If you chose to ignore what is believed by most qualified scientists, there is nothing I might add to convince you.

Poor widdle Bulldog. Defending the indefensible to the bitter end. Here you go sweetheart... This was the famed Polar Bear study. Peer reviewed by the authors WIFE! No conspiricy theory, actual cold hard fact. A fact that makes you look like a complete 'tard.

Hello 'tard!



"Monnett, who currently works as a wildlife biologist for ID's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, and who also manages 50 million in research studies there, is currently the primary target of the investigation. Disclosure of Monnett's "personal relationships and preparation of scope of work," is also of primary concern because the peer review process used in publishing his landmark polar bear study appears to have been fraudulent as well.

According to Human Events, Monnett's wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as lead researcher of another questionable polar bear study, Andrew Derocher from the University of Alberta in Canada, both peer reviewed Monnett's polar bear study. Having one's wife review a study is, of course, an obvious conflict of interest. And Derocher, whose own polar bear study is currently under review, also happens to have been acquired by Monnett, which calls into question the integrity of his review as well.

Learn more: Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

Perfect example of how peer review works. More than one peer looks at the research. Frauds and unscientific methods are soon exposed. The only ones who disagree with the consensus of man made global climate change are people paid by companies who have a vested interest in the outcome.

It took a SCEPTIC to find that particular bit of bullshit. And the warmists tried to hide it. And then they tried to defend it, and now, like you, they try and prop it up as an example of their good work when they were EXPOSED by those they hate.

So, who do you work for? No thinking reasonable person can have such a warped view of this subject. So, who do you work for?

Because I acknowledge that I am not qualified to make those judgments, you think I must " work for somebody"? Why do RWNJs claim they know everything there is to know about everything?

I'm not the person saying "the science is settled". Am I. If you want to talk about RWNJ's claiming to "know everything" I suggest you look to your own ranks. THEY are the only ones claiming to know everything.

 

[jc456]

Poor widdle Bulldog. Defending the indefensible to the bitter end. Here you go sweetheart... This was the famed Polar Bear study. Peer reviewed by the authors WIFE! No conspiricy theory, actual cold hard fact. A fact that makes you look like a complete 'tard.

Hello 'tard!



"Monnett, who currently works as a wildlife biologist for ID's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, and who also manages 50 million in research studies there, is currently the primary target of the investigation. Disclosure of Monnett's "personal relationships and preparation of scope of work," is also of primary concern because the peer review process used in publishing his landmark polar bear study appears to have been fraudulent as well.

According to Human Events, Monnett's wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as lead researcher of another questionable polar bear study, Andrew Derocher from the University of Alberta in Canada, both peer reviewed Monnett's polar bear study. Having one's wife review a study is, of course, an obvious conflict of interest. And Derocher, whose own polar bear study is currently under review, also happens to have been acquired by Monnett, which calls into question the integrity of his review as well.

Learn more: Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

Perfect example of how peer review works. More than one peer looks at the research. Frauds and unscientific methods are soon exposed. The only ones who disagree with the consensus of man made global climate change are people paid by companies who have a vested interest in the outcome.

It took a SCEPTIC to find that particular bit of bullshit. And the warmists tried to hide it. And then they tried to defend it, and now, like you, they try and prop it up as an example of their good work when they were EXPOSED by those they hate.

So, who do you work for? No thinking reasonable person can have such a warped view of this subject. So, who do you work for?

Because I acknowledge that I am not qualified to make those judgments, you think I must " work for somebody"? Why do RWNJs claim they know everything there is to know about everything?

Probably just because you're confused. First you claim no interest in the issues and NO ability to understand the science. Then you tell us that ONLY "climate scientists" can analyze or understand the essentials of the debate. But THEN -- You post a list of "Consensus" organizations where 90% of them have only 2 or 3% of the membership actually ENGAGING in climate science. The remainder being medical, materials, agricultural, or robotics, etc -- experts.. At LEAST you shouldn't be making those huge logic and reason contradictions -- EVEN IF -- your only argument is leaning on "authority"..

OR maybe you should realize that it really isn't that difficult to debate some of the climate issues as you think it is. And ANY of those scientists from "an Academy of Science" should be able to form an excellent opinion on the topic.

I never said the subject wasn't interesting. I just said I am not qualified to evaluate all the data and come to a conclusion. I , like most other people, have to depend on credible experts for my understanding. I can believe people who have studied for decades and have formed a good reputation or some anonymous RWNJ whose claims can never be verified, and who also support several obvious conspiracy theories. It's not really that hard of a choice.

so curious, does it matter to you who pays their salary? If not, what do you say when scientists like Judith Curry back my side? Or is it because she is paid by someone? Is the funding the problem or not?

 

[bripat9643]

Straw dog.. Tell me how hot it's GONNA be in 2050 -- and I'll play your game.

Why do you think I should know that? I already told you I'm not a climate scientist, and I doubt they would be able to be that specific..

You said the science was settled and there was a consensus.. Well -- what IS the "consensus" on the temperature anomaly in 2050.. And what WAS IT -- when this circus hit the road in 1980?

Simple questions.. Probably a 5th grader could find those answers..

Who has an interest in pushing a false theory? Of course it's easy to see why oil companies would be interested in burying such a theory.

Every Climate scientist who gets money from the government, every bureaucrat and government employee and anyone sucking on the government tit has a financial interest in promoting the AGW scam.

OK.Why is the government doing that. What is the purpose?

I just told you. What part of "Every Climate scientist who gets money from the government, every bureaucrat and government employee and anyone sucking on the government tit has a financial interest in promoting the AGW scam" didn't you understand?