LMAO....so much for "global warming"!!!!

[TyroneSlothrop]

Tyrone

And did I mention the figure on sea levels is before taking evaporation into account??? The actual difference in the rate of melting only means a one inch rise in 250 years.....

Tell the Pentagon they are under the impression there is a climate change threat...stop them with your truth and wisdom...impress them with your climate credential "Obiwan" LOL

 

[Obiwan]

Tyrone

Just admit the facts... The people pushing climate change intentionally use a small-scale graph (without pointing that out), in order to make it look like we are going through catastrophic changes when they are really miniscule.... As a matter of fact, the changes they are claiming are insignificant compared to the normal year-to-year variations!!!!

The fact that you would try that deception actually brings your intellectual honesty into question, doesn't it???

 

[skookerasbil]

Retweet 17 Share 18 As Glaciers Melt in Ecuador, Pope Francis challenges Technocrats, touts “Keeping” the Environment[/paste:font]
By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | - - Pope Francis continues to preach environmentalism as he addresses crowds in Latin America, a challenging message in poor countries where over-exploitation of natural…

you idiot.......nobody cares about the pope.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Tyrone

Just admit the facts...

admit that NOAA and NASA support my position as do the various meteorological agencies all over the world ...admit that ...even the Pope issued an encyclical supporting my position............admit the UN and the Pentagon support my position

You have Drudge though I will grant you that

 

[skookerasbil]

Tyrone

Just admit the facts...

admit that NOAA and NASA support my position as do the various meteorological agencies all over the world ...admit that ...even the Pope issued an encyclical supporting my position............admit the UN and the Pentagon support my position

You have Drudge though I will grant you that

they rigged the data s0n......they even admit it!!! But when you are in a matrix bubble, you are only exposed to limited information. Like most k00k progressives.

 

[skookerasbil]

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/burnout.gif.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey JC...........tell me you didn't see this coming!!!!





JC.....think we've actually found somebody more mental than Mamooth!!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud

head of IPCC cleared of fraud allegations ...

The CRU scientists have been cleared

In the months that followed, there were several inquiries into the allegations resulting from the emails. When a few of the more suggestive email quotes are reeled off by pundits without much context, they can sound pretty damning. But each and every one of these inquiries has found no fraud and no conspiracy.

The most comprehensive inquiry was the Independent Climate Change Email Review led by Sir Muir Russell, commissioned by UEA to examine the behaviour of the CRU scientists (but not the scientific validity of their work). It published its final report in July 2010. This inquiry was no whitewash: it examined the main allegations arising from the emails and their implications in meticulous detail. It focused on what the CRU scientists did, not what they said, investigating the evidence for and against each allegation. It interviewed CRU and UEA staff, and took 111 submissions including one from CRU itself. And it also did something the media completely failed to do: it attempted to put the actions of CRU scientists into context.

The Review went back to primary sources to see if CRU really was hiding or falsifying their data. It considered how much CRU’s actions influenced the IPCC’s conclusions about temperatures during the past millennium. It commissioned a paper by Dr Richard Horton, editor ofThe Lancet, on the context of scientific peer review. It asked IPCC Review Editors how much influence individuals could wield on writing groups. And it reviewed the university's FoI processes and CRU's compliance with them. Many of these are things any journalist could have done relatively easily, but few ever bothered to do.

The Review also commented on the broader context of science in the 21st century. To paraphrase from Chapter 5: the emergence of the blogosphere requires significantly more openness from scientists. However, providing the details necessary to validate large datasets can be difficult and time-consuming, and how FoI laws apply to research is still an evolving area. Meanwhile, the public needs to understand that science cannot and does not produce absolutely precise answers. Though the uncertainties may become smaller and better constrained over time, uncertainty in science is a fact of life which policymakers have to deal with. The chapter concludes: “the Review would urge all scientists to learn to communicate their work in ways that the public can access and understand”.

The Review points out the well-known psychological phenomenon that email is less formal than other forms of communication: “Extreme forms of language are frequently applied to quite normal situations by people who would never use it in other communication channels.” The CRU scientists assumed their emails to be private, so they used “slang, jargon and acronyms” which would have been more fully explained had they been talking to the public. And although some emails suggest CRU went out of their way to make life difficult for their critics, there are others which suggest they were bending over backwards to be honest. Therefore the Review found “the e-mails cannot always be relied upon as evidence of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behaviour that is extreme, exceptional or unprofessional.” [section 4.3]

So when put into the proper context, what do these emails actually reveal about the behaviour of the CRU scientists? The report concluded (its emphasis):

Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour, and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists,we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular,we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognize not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science. [1.3]

These general findings are more or less consistent across the various allegations the Review investigated. Its specific findings are summarized in the following rebuttals: "Did CRU tamper with temperature data?", "What does Mike's Nature trick to 'hide the decline' mean?", "Climategate and the peer-review process", "Were skeptic scientists kept out of the IPCC?", and "Climategate and the Freedom of Information (FOI) requests".

 

[skookerasbil]

Who's not winning???!!!!!


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/eia-energy-demand-to-2035_1.jpg.html][/URL]

Oh....lookee here!!! Projections from the ...........Obama EIA!!!


Could I be laughing any harder???



= nobody cares about the science

 

[Obiwan]

JC....is this shit hysterical??

And what's really funny is the fact that the rigged data is insignificant, and they had to rely on a deceptive presentation to try to sell it!!!!!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

graphic
Record-Setting Heat Across the U.S. in 2012
A map showing which parts of the country were warmest.

 

[westwall]

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud

You do realize that this is really, and I mean really old news. Right?

 

[westwall]

graphic
Record-Setting Heat Across the U.S. in 2012
A map showing which parts of the country were warmest.

A three year old map is not exactly germane to the discussion now is it silly boy....

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

JC....is this shit hysterical??

And what's really funny is the fact that the rigged data is insignificant, and they had to rely on a deceptive presentation to try to sell it!!!!!

There was no rigged data ....it was all BS from the usual suspects.... There is you the wing nuts on one side
and then there is the Pentagon , Weather and Climate agencies, leading world Climate scientist thinking people the Pope most world leaders on the other side ... you see how that works ?

Oh yeah you have Drudge I forgot

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

a three year old map is not germane however a debunked BS story about "rigged data" from 6 years ago is germane...you have Drudge

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Can someone explain to me how come all Government agencies, the UN , most Government in the world and most Climate scientist agree with me ...?


Drudge though he does disagree..........

 

[Obiwan]

[QUOTE="TyroneSlothro

A three year old map is not exactly germane to the discussion now is it silly boy....

Actually, he's put up 10 year old charts, but when we bring up the last two winters, he refuses to address it.......

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

• 
  IPCC Report: ‘severe and pervasive’ impacts of climate change will be felt everywhere
  31 March 2014

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Actually, he's put up 10 year old charts, but when we bring up the last two winters, he refuses to address it.......

Can you address this question

why does the UN the Pentagon NOAA, NASA The UK Weather Climate Center the Japanese Weather climate center agree with me ...


and you all have Drudge ?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Actually, he's put up 10 year old charts, but when we bring up the last two winters, he refuses to address it.......

Drudge ???....