Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The Revolutionary Implications of 'Warmergate'

The Revolutionary Implications of 'Warmergate'

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:47:16 -0600
R406200
1 week ago
bacchus

check out this blog at The New York Times

It would be interesting to calculate the AGW skeptic to AGW defender ratio.

Post Modified: 11/25/09 11:00:27

R406201
1 week ago
microdot

You’re calling the Christian Science Monitor a “moderate newspaper”?

I went to the running of the bulls in Pamplona one year — when they had riots instead. The morning after we were all walking around in the street, the festival having been cancelled given there had been a death. . .

When someone dropped a garbage can. It made a loud crash. Who knows how far off.

Everyone started running. It was the funniest thing you ever saw.

Corporate media keeps everyone jumpy so they can whack them off like so many baseballs to whatever leftfield serves their agenda du jour.


R406203
1 week ago
bacchus

what do you suggest is a moderate newspaper?

Please don’t say MIM Notes, it’s not really a newspaper.

Post Modified: 11/25/09 11:05:11

R406204
1 week ago
microdot

Most popular posts at the Huffington:

Katie Couric Dancing: Party Pics Of Anchor Letting Loose (PHOTOS) 985 Comments
Adam Lambert FALLS At AMAs, Simulates Sex, Kisses Band Member, Flips Bird (PHOTOS) 1552 Comments
Palin Supporters Struggle To Explain Why They Support Palin (VIDEO) 8232 Comments

Kate Hudson’s dress ffs.


R406209
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel

“One would think that the audience of an environmental blog at a moderate paper like the CSM would be among the more sympathetic towards the Climate Change movement”

Funny how he uses the acronym instead of the complete name, maybe because it would discredit your argument?? All Im saying ist that a web-science news-site that features a religious article EVERY time is probably not moderate.

From the Huntington Post

A counter to the whole argument your presenting.

Post Modified: 11/25/09 11:38:54

R406210
1 week ago
bacchus

Well, my “whole argument” is that even on mainstream-liberal or ‘green’ blogs (like HuffPo of the Christian Science Monitor’s “Bright Green Blog”), and even with articles that downplay this whole controversy (like the one you linked), the comments sections reveal a big change in how people are thinking about the Climate Change movement.

Most of those still defending the movement don’t appear to have read the emails, or, more importantly, looked at the documents.

As George Monbiot, climate activist extraordinaire says in his blog at the U.K.‘s mainstream-liberal newspaper The Guardian:

Pretending the climate email leak isn’t a crisis won’t make it go away

“...it is also true that the emails are very damaging.”

Post Modified: 11/25/09 11:46:13

R406212
1 week ago
Truthcansuk

Bacchus – Most of those still defending the movement don’t appear to have read the emails.

Have you read the e-mails, Bacchus?


R406213
1 week ago
bacchus

“here are some good ones”:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked

Post Modified: 11/25/09 11:48:34

R406218
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel

From your link Bacchus:

“any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often use all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause.”

“Even so, his message looks awful. It gives the impression of confirming a potent meme circulated by those who campaign against taking action on climate change: that the IPCC process is biased. However as good the detailed explanations may be, most people aren’t going to follow or understand them. Jones’s statement, on the other hand, is stark and easy to grasp.”

“The handling of this crisis suggests that nothing has been learnt by climate scientists in this country from 20 years of assaults on their discipline. They appear to have no idea what they’re up against or how to confront it. Their opponents might be scumbags, but their media strategy is exemplary.”

EG, your own link discredits you to some extent, Bacchus.


R406219
1 week ago
Truthcansuk

DR, you kinda get used to it…


R406220
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel

What people like these and others don’t understand is that the evidence for climate change is based on decades of research that builds and builds into a solid foundation from which conclusions can be drawn. If you have problems with science, thats your deal, but you cant deny thousands and thousands of bits of data that support the case.

Its just not the house of cards they want us to think it is. And while these emails don’t look great, they are in no way “proof” that climate change is not happening and is only a grand conspiracy they think it is.


R406223
1 week ago
bacchus

“There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific.”

~George AGW Monbiot

Post Modified: 11/25/09 12:15:07

R406225
1 week ago
remarcus

Have you read the e-mails, Bacchus?

heh, get back to me on that one, uh, after you finish with your spoonfed internet research blog comment driven opinion poll

i think theres only 62 MB of data to sift thru.. anyone find a link to the data?


R406226
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel

“their media strategy is exemplary”

~George AGW Monbiot

If only climate change activists could afford the PR guys that the oil industry has, collection plate people?

Post Modified: 11/25/09 12:21:13

R406227
1 week ago
remarcus

here try this… think its excerpted, but that orta fuel your fire or sumthin…

http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip

on edit: dead link
Post Modified: 11/25/09 12:24:42

R406229
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

i think theres only 62 MB of data to sift thru.. anyone find a link to the data?

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/


R406230
1 week ago
bacchus

“builds and builds into a solid foundation from which conclusions can be drawn… thousands of bits of data”

What you don’t understand is that the CRU collects and holds centrally much the raw data concerning the Earth’s temperature.

Data which and they refused to release in it’s raw form.

Possibly criminally in the face of FOI requests.

Data they “accidentally” deleted.

Get it?

Post Modified: 11/25/09 12:28:52

R406231
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel

Key word is ALLEGED emails.


R406232
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

CRU says leaked data is real

The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”


R406233
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel

What you don’t understand is that the CRU collects and holds centrally much the raw data concerning the Earth’s temperature.”

The Earth is obviously not warming. So what if huge expanses of ancient ice are thawing and crashing into the ocean, that doesnt imply warming at all.


R406234
1 week ago
rasmekpeace

FA just put in his two cents.

this thread has officially gone to shit.


R406235
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

Using your rasmekpeace sockpuppet again Dilated_Rebel?


R406236
1 week ago
Truthcansuk

Yes, they stated that the e-mails appeared to be genuine right from the start.


R406237
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel

Hot off the newswire

Climate scientist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims

Jones accepted, though, that the contents of some of the emails were cause for embarrassment: “Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit – I would categorically deny that.”

“Jones said the timing of the theft suggested it was intended to cause maximum embarrassment ahead of the Copenhagen climate talks next month: “One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.”

And the kicker

He added that he had long been under pressure from climate sceptics to further explain his research: “From about 2001/2002 I was getting emails from a number of people involved in the climate sceptic community. Initially at the beginning I did try to respond to them in the hope I might convince them but I soon realised it was a forlorn hope and broke off communication. Some of the emails I sent them subsequently appeared and were discussed on various sceptic websites.”

Post Modified: 11/25/09 12:37:13

R406238
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

and your point is?


R406239
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

sure it’s for real.

from what i can tell, we’ve only learned one thing: that scientists are fallible human beings and that there is a war going on, so to speak, between those who believe anthropogenic climate change to be a real threat and those who think it’s being hyped to further concentrate power and wealth (i personally think it’s a little of both). i am willing to bet that both “sides” have manipulated data in very dishonest ways in their own favor.

people keep talking about how this is some sort of bombshell or smoking gun that proves there is no scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change, but this is not news. there is never full consensus in science, and there never will be. there are always dissenting voices, even against the most well-proven theories.

regardless, i am in no way surprised that climate scientists would fudge and manipulate data in favor of their preferred theories and scenarios, nor am i surprised that there is a lack of consensus in the scientific community. i also do not see how the manipulation of data in their favor somehow equates anthropogenic climate change itself being a “hoax” or something.

and yes, folks, climate change might turn out to mean global cooling, especially if/when the Gulf Stream conveyor stops/reverses. so enough with the absurd argument that evidence of global cooling is somehow evidence against global climate change.


R406240
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel

“Initially at the beginning I did try to respond to them in the hope I might convince them but I soon realised it was a forlorn hope and broke off communication”

The best advice ever given on GNN.


R406241
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel

Good way to put it shifty, very fair. (Not being sarcastic)

Floyd, maybe that was me using my shifty sock puppet. Lolz, you cute conspiratoid!

Post Modified: 11/25/09 12:43:05

R406242
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

and let me state for the record that i oppose any top-down, State/industry “solutions” to climate change. i fully accept that the elite are manipulating the very environmental crisis they created to further concentrate wealth and power, and i will resist this by any means necessary. but this does not mean that the crisis itself has been manufactured and does not exist, but rather that it is being manipulated for the benefit of the few, as usual.


R406243
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

Floyd, maybe what was me using my shifty sock puppet. Lolz, you cute conspiratoid!

What an amazing coincidence that you posted photos of your garden from photobucket user rasmekpeace


R406247
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

hahaha BUSTED!


R406249
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel

Lulz.

You’re still a conspiratoid!


R406250
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

^seconded


R406251
1 week ago
remarcus

heh


R406252
1 week ago
rasmekpeace

^Thirded.


R406253
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel

^fourthed.

Lulz.


R406254
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

R406256
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel

I love GNN, they cant close this place down!!!!


R406257
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

there are people who know better than the scientists do…


R406258
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

they cant close this place down!!!!

they already did. welcome to the echo chamber.


R406259
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel

Lulz, good point.

Sometimes I tend to forget that GNN is down and out.

Funny how the brass here allow us to continue editing and posting to this site, weird?


R406260
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

there are people who know better than the scientists do…

what do they know?


R406261
1 week ago
remarcus

just because the masses cant see us anymore doesnt make us invalid, does it?


R406262
1 week ago
remarcus

think of it as a private party! party on…


R406263
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

you’d have to watch the film, floyd. basically they are seeing changes in their habitat that tell them that the climate of the planet is changing, and they also know what sorts of human activities have caused it. since you’re into mystical wisdom and whatnot, you should give that vid a watch. The way they train their shamans is incredible. The Kogi are one of the most amazing people on earth, if you ask me.


R406264
1 week ago
Truthcansuk

Shift – regardless, i am in no way surprised that climate scientists would fudge and manipulate data in favor of their preferred theories and scenarios…

Unless you’ve read the e-mails, evaluated what the scientists who wrote them have had to say about them and found their explanations lacking and/or used telepathy to glean TEH TROOF, then no, you are not ‘in no way surprised.’ Rather, you ‘would be in no way surprised.’

Your statement presupposes that Floyd, Bacchus and Alex Jones are actually correct as to their translation of the out-of-context snippets…


R406266
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

basically they are seeing changes in their habitat that tell them that the climate of the planet is changing, and they also know what sorts of human activities have caused it.

what human activities do they say are changing the climate?


R406268
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel

“what human activities do they say are changing the climate”

How about deforrestation of their forrest? Oh and CIA drugplanes crashing and burning and releasing burned cocaine into the atmosphere.


R406270
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

How about deforrestation of their forrest? Oh and CIA drugplanes crashing and burning and releasing burned cocaine into the atmosphere.

Is that what they say in the film?


R406271
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

what human activities do they say are changing the climate?

if you’re not willing to watch the fucking video floyd, then i guess you don’t really care to find out. i won’t deliver their message second hand.


R406272
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel

Lulz.

Havent seen film, but Im just speculating.


R406273
1 week ago
remarcus

oh, c’mon, shift, thats how he likes it…


R406274
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

if you’re not willing to watch the fucking video floyd, then i guess you don’t really care to find out. i won’t deliver their message second hand.

why not?


R406275
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel

But hey, arent videos Floyds preffered manner of ‘educating’ himself?

That is how you’ve learned about the world right, youtube?


R406277
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

I do like to watch videos online.

I just bought the book The Elite Don’t Dare Let Us Tell the People by Robert Gaylon Ross Sr. at Brave New Books this past Sunday. It’s excellent.

What are you reading nowadays Dilated_Troll?


R406278
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel


R406281
1 week ago
Trainspotter

Coolest Echo Chamber on any hard drive, anywhere!


R406284
1 week ago
sisyphus

flyod – I do like to watch videos online

here’s some videos:

http://www.beasttube.com/


R406295
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

the revolutionary implications for the future are startling.

i must have missed the part where you stated what those implications are exactly.

we’ve always known the potential for hackers to liberate data and information.

Post Modified: 11/25/09 14:26:27

R406313
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

i must have missed the part where you stated what those implications are exactly.

it’s in the next paragraph shift-for-brains:

Imagine the data which is currently lurking on all kinds of servers right now. Data which is likely accessible to hackers, IT professionals, site administrators etc. The revolutions of the future may well be very quick and bloodless. One day we may wake up and find a news article reporting that a low-paid whistleblowing server manager has leaked an email from Karl Rove to Dick Cheney titled “Re:9-11,” which might then be followed by an on camera admission along the lines of “but that’s taken out of context,” and then it really all be over. Imagine the Federal Reserve transaction records being dumped to a server in Russia, or of internal communiques between mainstream media bosses and their reporters. I wonder what kind of terminology the World Bank and IMF use internally. I’m sure you can imagine a few more scenarios yourself.

The hack of the CRU has no doubt gotten people thinking about what else could be hacked. It’s very exciting. I’d really like to see something revealed about the inner workings of the mainstream media.


R406314
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

like i said, most of us have know the potential of hackers to liberate data and information for a long time now. what’s more, hackers have the potential to erase the debt record. that’s the blow i’d like to see them strike.


R406315
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

most of us have know the potential of hackers to liberate data and information for a long time now

isn’t it exciting when it really happens Shifty


R406316
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

sure. i just don’t see any real evidence that it means what you want to believe that it means.


R406317
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

R406320
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

sure. i just don’t see any real evidence that it means what you want to believe that it means.

as bacchus wrote: What’s amazing is how drastically, and how quickly, this seems to have shifted the debate.

and it certainly has. check out climate cultist Ed Begley, Jr. going all nutty in the second part of this video:

Warmists can invoke “peer-reviewed studies” until they are blue in the face, as Begley does in this interview, but the fact is that the entire foundation of the argument has been debunked now it is proven that an inherent bias to censor unfavorable studies from appearing in such journals has been in place.

The rest of the interview mainly consists of Begley having a tantrum, wildly gesticulating and waving his finger around like a drunken sailor. Implicit within his behavior is everything that has come to represent the climate cultists – a religious-style zeal in proclaiming absolute truth, an obstinate refusal to even entertain dissenting opinions, and an aggressive shouty posture indicative of someone in deep denial attempting to drown out anything that might contradict their flimsy argument.

Post Modified: 11/25/09 16:07:48

R406321
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

the fact is that the entire foundation of the argument has been debunked now

heh. of what argument? that peer-reviewed shit is canonical or something? hell, even climate change deniers can cite peer-reviewed material in their favor. that doesn’t mean shit. peer-reviewed work is definitely preferable to something some cook wrote on anomalytelevision or some shit, but it is in no way infallible.

there are fundamentalists of all sorts, including climate scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate change. that doesn’t mean all climate scientists are fundamentalists or that all climate science has somehow been thrown into question by the contents of these emails, which is an absurd notion.

all the emails show is some very unscrupulous behavior on the part of a select few climate scientists. so the fuck what?


R406322
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

R406327
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

all the emails show is some very unscrupulous behavior on the part of a select few climate scientists. so the fuck what?

heh. this is getting fun. as bacchus and Russia Today have already stated: CRU is the “top source of temperature data in the world.”


R406331
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

CRU is the “top source of temperature data in the world.”

how so? did bacchus and RT simply “state” this, is it a claim the CRU makes about themselves, or did they get that from somewhere else?


R406332
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

and like i already said, even if climate scientists at the “top source for temperature data in the world” were caught fudging data in their favor, that doesn’t mean jack shit about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. it just means that some scientists were fucking with their data. big fucking deal. it’s not like all climate science is based on the work of the CRU or some shit. there are hundreds of thousands of climate scientists all around the world, and numerous centers boasting clout comparable to the CRU.


R406334
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

this shit’s hilarious.

the whole things unraveling. where’s that prick Livingston?


R406336
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

fucking talking heads. this is like OJ Simpson or the death of Michael Jackson: a spectacle of media spin and manipulation.

you’re really eating it up, aren’t you? typical.


R406337
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

why do you so desperately want there to be anthropogenic climate change?


R406340
1 week ago
remarcus

why do you so deny the obvious, floyd?


R406343
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

remarcus, have you noticed that the CRU has been hacked and it turns out that they have been faking the anthropogenic climate change data?


R406344
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

R406348
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

have you noticed that the CRU has been hacked and it turns out that they have been faking the anthropogenic climate change data

heh. climate change deniers do the same all the time: manipulate data in favor of their arguments and fundamentalist ideological stances regarding climate change (on both “sides”). so the fuck what?


R406351
1 week ago
Trainspotter

The difference between the type of manipulation that Floyd’s postings accuse and the manipulation that actually took place is not being sussed out here. The wording of the emails is in full blown geek-speak. It is being misunderstood and turned on it’s ear and played fully out of context. It isn’t a matter of “both sides do bad things sometimes” at all. One side is taking some information and distorting the meaning to suit their agenda and blowing spew all over the place. Period. The meaning of the actual text is being purposefully misrepresented. The timing is far too curious as well….

Floyd – this is a little toooo convenient for you don’t you think? The wordlwide conspiracy to impose a world government is suddenly fully undone by the theft of some data from a single institution? Uhhh, ok… yeah. Yeah, that makes sense, yeah…. pssssssssss…. What the heck are you smoking, ditchweed?


R406352
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

fair enough. that assessment will come in due time. right now we’re in media frenzy mode. but regardless, i assume scientists on both sides are capable of fudging data in their favor. to me this doesn’t debunk anthropogenic climate change in the least, even if it were there case, which as you claim, it isn’t. i’m willing to wait and see.


R406354
1 week ago
Trainspotter

That assessment may never get the airplay it will need to undo the damage this little bullshit storm is wreaking. The media being the media and all.


R406355
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

The meaning of the actual text is being purposefully misrepresented.

Please give me an example.

Floyd – this is a little toooo convenient for you don’t you think? The wordlwide conspiracy to impose a world government is suddenly fully undone by the theft of some data from a single institution?

I salute the hackers for their excellent timing. They hacked into and exposed the deception of the top data source on climate change just prior to the Copenhagen Summit.


R406357
1 week ago
Trainspotter

Please give me an example.

It is hard to comment on this because as I said, the stuff is written in hard core geek-speak. It is clear enough to me that I really don’t know what the guy is talking about in the paragraph that uses the word “trick”. Not because he’s talking in code to cover up collusion, but because he’s talking to a like mind using jargon about very specific and highly academic topics of which I am wholly ignorant.

Read it and acknowledge all the points in the discussion that are inaccessible to you and then add up the paragraph in terms of your true comprehension and justify how you can possibly conclude that paragraph to be an admission of gross deceit. (Nevermind that there has been a worldwide fraud perpetrated by thousands of scientists the world over who were all either mind-controlled or just happy to blindly accept willfully manipulated data from a single institution.)

Then shake your head.


R406358
1 week ago
Trainspotter

And I should point out that the discussion of data manipulation does not imply the type of manipulation you want to believe they are admitting to. Data manipulation can mean a lot of things – to a lot of different professions, and is part of the process for certain procedures. Data gets manipulated in predetermined ways for different reasons that are understood by those presenting and those receiving the data. To hear the two words together in a single sentence and run off shouting to the gods about a crime just proves that the person didn’t listen (or care to listen) to the full discussion or, they just didn’t get it.


R406359
1 week ago
Trainspotter

And while I’m following up it is worth pointing out that the degree of specialisation out there pretty much guarantees that after so many years of schooling and working in a particular field you are going to be understood by an ever narrowing range of persons.

You don’t really think all phd’s in the world are liberal university elitists bent on a common goal as well do you?


R406361
1 week ago
Trainspotter

Want a down to earth example? Ride around in a cab and try to listen to and understand what the fuck the dispatch people are saying and the grunts your cabby gives in reply! I’m fucking lost whenever I experience that, but somehow the supply and demand logistics get looked after and I get home from the bar. Fucking amazing!


R406362
1 week ago
Truthcansuk

Trainer – You don’t really think all phd’s in the world are liberal university elitists bent on a common goal as well do you?

Except the ones that agree with him, yes. It really is that simple.


R406363
1 week ago
tango

i assume scientists on both sides are capable of fudging data in their favor.

There aren’t scientists on “both sides,” really.

Data manipulation can mean a lot of things

Scientists do what is called transforming data) quite often. To not do so, in a statistical sense, would be to violate the assumptions that the data are sound.

For example, your data needs to be from a normal, equally distributed population prior to some types of analysis. To get the data to adhere to these assumptions, it is necessary to calculate the square, square root, log, ect.

If I was to discuss this with a colleague, I would probably say, “Hey, assface, can you send me the trick you used for the climate data?” or something along those lines.

In the case of the climate data, it appears that the “hidden” tree-ring data was simply transformed to prevent a discrepancy between late-stage temperature fluctuations (that didn’t match the actual record) and earlier stages, which did.

It’s interesting that given the shit-ton of e-mails that were liberated by these intrepid haxzors, this vague, easily explained tidbit is the most they could come up with as far as proving the great global conspiracy.

Post Modified: 11/25/09 19:11:26

R406366
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

It is hard to comment on this because as I said, the stuff is written in hard core geek-speak. It is clear enough to me that I really don’t know what the guy is talking about in the paragraph that uses the word “trick”. Not because he’s talking in code to cover up collusion, but because he’s talking to a like mind using jargon about very specific and highly academic topics of which I am wholly ignorant.

Phil Jones is discussing temperature and he wrote that he used a trick to hide the decline. It is very strange that you guys seem to want there to be anthropogenic global warming and you have no evidence of it. What makes y’all think it exists? Are y’all financially wrapped up in this lie?

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt


R406367
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

Do you see the subject line of the email? It says Diagram for WMO Statement.

Now, take a look at the Diagram for the 1999 WMO Statement

Can you see the message this diagram is sending? It is showing that temperatures are not in decline, but rather are skyrocketing during the 20th century. Notice the last names on the diagram. Do you see a Jones and a Mann? Phil Jones & Mike Mann.

Post Modified: 11/25/09 20:06:00

R406368
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

Philip D. Jones (born 1952) is a climatologist at the University of East Anglia, notable for maintaining of the time series of the instrumental temperature record[1]; this work figured prominently in the IPCC TAR SPM[2]. He is director of the Climatic Research Unit and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich. He holds a BA in Environmental Sciences from the University of Lancaster, and an MSc and PhD from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. His PhD was titled “A spatially distributed catchment model for flood forecasting and river regulation with particular reference to the River Tyne”. His research interests are instrumental climate change, palaeoclimatology, detection of climate change and the extension of riverflow records in the UK. He was a contributing author to the IPCC TAR chapter 12 Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes. Together with Michael E. Mann he has published on the temperature record of the past 1000 years.

Post Modified: 11/25/09 20:25:51

R406369
1 week ago
Trainspotter

2 posts above Floyd you quote the same “trick”, “hide the decline” comment that I discussed above. You are focused on a couple of keywords and interpretting meaning across the entire message. Can you really say you understand that whole message? I certainly can’t.

Yes I believe warming is happening and that it is anthropogenic. No I have no financial vestment in such. That’s a juvenile question. You may feel like part of the majority on Prison Planet but deniers are in the minority worldwide, FYI. The rest of the world isn’t stupid or “in on it”.

If you and yours are right then great – I’ll be happy to see the return of ice to the Arctic Ocean, Kilimanjaro etc… But it isn’t about being right, what is at stake is beyond everyone’s ego. Try some critical analysis, and maybe some self interrogation regards your motives and desires.


R406370
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

Yes I believe warming is happening and that it is anthropogenic.

based on what evidence?

Post Modified: 11/25/09 21:20:36

R406371
1 week ago
Truthcansuk

Can you comment on Tango’s comments above, Floyd? I’m curious as to your take on them, seeing as how he’s, you know, an actual scientist and stuff?


R406372
1 week ago
remarcus

floyd, i think you and your little buddy deny homo-sapiens-sapiens being too numerous and fucking up the whole eco-sphere because of your need for your own CONSUMPTION to remain unhindered. i would call that piggish, naive and totally irresponsible but my former point has not yet been proven

floyd, prove you and your friends dont feel this need to defend your current ability to suck down finite resources like it was, errrr, water to the point that species extinction becomes a non-sequitur…

you following me here? I wont splain it again


R406373
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

Can you comment on Tango’s comments above, Floyd? I’m curious as to your take on them, seeing as how he’s, you know, an actual scientist and stuff?

How about Tango explains this further:

In the case of the climate data, it appears that the “hidden” tree-ring data was simply transformed to prevent a discrepancy between late-stage temperature fluctuations (that didn’t match the actual record) and earlier stages, which did.


R406374
1 week ago
remarcus

its a model, floyd. reality is much more complicated.. jeez


R406378
1 week ago
Trainspotter

TCS Can you comment on Tango’s comments above, Floyd?

FA How about Tango explains this further:

the answer to this is beer
obviously


R406379
1 week ago
remarcus

its like explaining chirt to the rock… fucking neanderthal


R406387
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

explain man-made climate change to me remarcus. just give me the evidence that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate. should be easy for you since you are so convinced.


R406388
1 week ago
Trainspotter

The whole conversation is about how high end science isn’t something you throw around while holding up the wall at the convenience store. rem isn’t able to prove something in a soundbite anymore than you are likely to believe him anyway.

You do have to decide where you’re going to put your trust at some point. Within the scientific literature, despite claims by right wing media pundits and bloggers to the contrary, there is no more debate about AGW than there is about the theory of evolution or gravity. Do you believe the earth is 3000 years old and there was a virgin birth? How about gravity, do you question that? Are you waiting for the rapture?

When someone gets up in front of a microphone and claims that there is a significant amount of debate within the scientific community about this they are misinformed, downright stupid, or outright lying – it just isn’t so.

All the youtube videos by Alex or whomever making extraordinary claims don’t count as any kind of respectable evidence. So what type of evidence are you really asking for?

Get over it. Change the channel.


R406389
1 week ago
Trainspotter

The whole conversation is about how high end science isn’t something you throw around while holding up the wall at the convenience store. rem isn’t able to prove something in a soundbite anymore than you are likely to believe him anyway.

You do have to decide where you’re going to put your trust at some point. Within the scientific literature, despite claims by right wing media pundits and bloggers to the contrary, there is no more debate about AGW than there is about the theory of evolution or gravity. Do you believe the earth is 3000 years old and there was a virgin birth? How about gravity, do you question that? Are you waiting for the rapture?

When someone gets up in front of a microphone and claims that there is a significant amount of debate within the scientific community about this they are misinformed, downright stupid, or outright lying – it just isn’t so.

All the youtube videos by Alex or whomever making extraordinary claims don’t count as any kind of respectable evidence. So what type of evidence are you really asking for?

Get over it. Change the channel.


R406390
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

rem isn’t able to prove something in a soundbite anymore than you are likely to believe him anyway.

you can’t explain it either. lol. what a bunch of fucking losers.

Post Modified: 11/26/09 00:13:21

R406391
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

you stupid fuckers are defending something that you can’t provide evidence of.

just give me the basics trainspotter….......what is your evidence that humans are causing global warming?


R406392
1 week ago
sisyphus


R406393
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

R406402
1 week ago
GWHunta

There is no scientific consensus regarding the primary causes of AGW among credible climatologists.

Snark disappeared from this debate not long after having a conversation with Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., whom was once a participant in the IPCC process but withdrew after experiencing the pressure to simplify and slant the evidence in favor of the prevailing Gore et al. explanation for climate change and accompanying proclamations of imminent danger as humanity crosses an environmental “tipping point” leading to climate chaos.

““Scientific rigor has been sacrificed,
and poor policy and political decisions
will inevitably follow.”
~ Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. regarding the IPCC process

I posted my theory on AGW (primarily hydrological, not CO2 or carbon cycle based) on Pielke’s Climate Science which much like GNN, was first closed to further posting by non members and has now vanished from the Internet completely, as GNN is soon destined to do as well.

The primary GHG (green house gas) energy exchange of our planet Earth’s “green house effect.”

Screw with it as we have collectively done and the result is AGW.

Not yet so extreme as to cause climate calamity as preached by Gore et al., but enough to ride piggyback atop natural climate variability to significantly warm the Arctic and higher northern latitudes and moderately impact the rest of the globe with the exception of the Antarctic mainland along with it.

Speaking of natural variability, if your not familiar with the term Hale winter, you don’t know enough about climate to hold anything beyond an opinion based on belief. You’ll also note that this a cached page, the original is once again, now absent from the Internet.

The CCD’ers (climate change deniers) are having a field day with the current “global cooling.”

Dah.

The sunspot cycle variation of 0.1% has small but detectable effects on the Earth’s climate. TSI variations over the several decades of continuous satellite observation show small but detectable trends that if sustained on longer timescales could be a significant forcing for climate change.

The existence and preeminence of natural climate variability over AGW doesn’t disprove the fact that human alterations to the natural hydrological cycle of the planet is making it warmer than it would otherwise be.

Nothing we have yet done to the planet is currently overriding the natural variability of the climate, nor is the Earth’s climate so sensitive to alterations that there is any “tipping point” that we are on the verge of surpassing.

Few stop to consider that water vapor (low temperature steam) is one of the primary byproducts of all combustion, be it forest fires (slash and burn of the rain forests), coal fired electrical generating plant, diesel semi truck or gasoline powered automobile. Ever watched the water pour out the exhaust system of a car on an incline, or wonder why the manufacturer of the exhaust systems put little drain holes into the exhaust to allow the condensed water vapor to drip out and not pool up inside the exhaust?

Even nuclear power plants and urban district cooling systems contribute huge volumes of water vapor to the atmosphere with the evaporative cooling systems that are used to dissipate waste heat.

2/3’s of the power generated at most nuclear plants is released to the atmosphere as water vapor, the remaining third, electricity.

Same with most coal fired plants. (86%) Natural gas fired plants have twice as much water vapor (steam) in their exhaust as CO2. Then the steam that powers the turbines must be condensed to be recycled through the plant and most power plants use evaporative cooling towers to release this “waste” heat to the atmosphere as latent heat in the form of water vapor.

That said, all these sources combined pale in comparison to the climate altering impact of damming and agricultural irrigation. The addition would be runoff turned to water vapor is more than tenfold all other anthropogenic water vapor sources combined.

More water vapor evaporates from reservoirs than all the water used by humanity for all other purposes with the single exception of agricultural irrigation.

As for Gore et al., Gore should be remembered first for being a second generation politician on the national level (as well as a tobacco farmer) which requires as a prerequisite to entry the ability to manipulate facts and figures for the benefit of the few over the majority. That’s how what is clearly a republic is veiled as a democracy.

Bottom line is Gore is lying and I believe he knwos it.

Post Modified: 11/26/09 03:37:27

R406409
1 week ago
Disenchanted

LOL, someone “Cracks” a shitty university server which probably had fuck all security and seemingly no encryption and now people think that it will be easy to crack anything.


R406415
1 week ago
GWHunta

Most people can’t crack an understanding of, as opposed to a belief in AGW, even if it’s spoon fed.

Sometimes no Piece

Post Modified: 12/03/09 00:15:58

R406435
1 week ago
bacchus

tango: “and earlier stages, which did.”

hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha.

My dowsing stick hasn’t been matching my tarot cards for the last 40 weeks, so therefore the dowsing stick was totally accurate before 40 weeks ago, and the tarot cards have been totally accurate since, which proves that my readings perfectly reflect reality, and to remove any discrepancy I’ll adjust my reading with a formula that comes up with the answer I wanted before I started anything in the first place.

Yes, it really is that bad.

The thermometers have mostly had cities grow up around them in the last hundred years, so they’d show warming even if there was none; and if you’re going to assume tree rings haven’t been accurate for the last 40 years, please tell me on what basis you assume they were earlier.

All of that is bad science. You, Tango, if you can’t follow this are a bad scientist. I don’t care where you got your degree from or how many peer-review circle jerks you’ve been in, if you can’t follow the basics here you and the CRU are bad scientists

What’s not bad science is creating an algorithm to force the two data sets together to achieve a preconcieved notion, hide your methodology and refuse to give it up in the face of an FOI rrequest.

That’s not bad science, that’s fraud. Fraud. Dirty, criminal, jailable fraud. These creeps being out of jail is the only thing that is “out of context.”

Post Modified: 11/26/09 13:26:45

R406437
1 week ago
Trainspotter

You know Floyd you can go fuck yourself. I’ve always and purposefully avoided knocking you personally. And that despite all the examples around me to the contrary. I’ve given you what I can, I’m not a scientist, how many times can I admit my own limitations before you fucking get it? You ignore most of what people say to you, you seem to have a genuine problem with written comprehension and when you don’t get an answer to a question that cannot be answered in a web thread you call me a ‘fucking loser’.

Fuck you Floyd. You’re not even a stubborn troll anymore, you’re genuinely stupid.

STUPID fuck..


R406438
1 week ago
Trainspotter

I really can’t believe how stupid you are….


R406439
1 week ago
tango

Hey Bacchus, I think your head will literally fucking explode when you hear one of the reasons why the post-1961 tree ring data may not match the actual recorded temps:

These periods between 1961 and 2005 match growth spurts recorded in the tree rings, report the researchers, led by Sigrid Dengel from the Institute of Atmospheric and Environmental Science at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.

But so far no-one knows why the link – which is small, but significant statistically – should exist. “These cyclic phenomena have been previously been identified in tree ring records but rarely explained,” Dengel told Cosmos Online.

One mechanism being considered by Dengel and her colleagues is the tendency of cosmic rays to create particles that ‘seed’ clouds. Research in the U.S. journal Science in 2002 suggested this effect may explain why solar variation can have a relatively big effect on climate by changing the amount of cloud cover on Earth.

Cosmic rays speed tree growth

/Hasn’t been proven, but it’s an interesting idea nonetheless.
//Mind blown yet, fuckers?
///But it’s still anthropogenic, no evidence linking cosmic rays to warming
////really
////backslash


R406440
1 week ago
Trainspotter

Wanna prove me (and all the others who feel the same way) wrong – just give us a brief synopsis of GWHunta’s analysis above….

Synopsis – it’s in the diktchunary.


R406441
1 week ago
tango

You, Tango are a bad scientist.

Thanks buddy! I like to think I’m making a difference, one peer-reviewed circle jerk at a time!

(There also should have been another comma after ‘Tango”.... so 1/2 mark off for punctuation).
Post Modified: 11/26/09 13:24:32

R406442
1 week ago
Trainspotter

Sweet. This is even easier Floyd…. Read Tango’s post and break that into street language. C’mon, I dare you – UNDERSTAND what Tango has brought to the conversation…


R406443
1 week ago
bacchus

no evidence linking cosmic rays to warming?

you’ve heard of the Danish National Space Center?

cosmic rays affect cloud formation.

clouds have a bit of an effect on temperature


R406445
1 week ago
tango

Trainspotter, don’t even worry about it.

If these kind, reasonable fellows on the interets disagree with the science involved with climate change, it really doesn’t affect you or I; it certainly doesn’t change anything globally. Let them have their conspiracy theories, it makes them feel special.


R406447
1 week ago
bacchus

tango this is from your own article:

Research in the U.S. journal Science in 2002 suggested this effect may explain why solar variation can have a relatively big effect on climate by changing the amount of cloud cover on Earth.

tango:

“no evidence linking cosmic rays to warming”

tango’s article, linked within the above comment:

“Research in the U.S. journal Science in 2002 suggested this effect may explain why solar variation can have a relatively big effect on climate by changing the amount of cloud cover on Earth”

Post Modified: 11/26/09 13:41:56

R406449
1 week ago
bacchus

But my question is, if tree rings aren’t measuring temperature accurately now, what makes anyone think they were in the past? Especially at an arbitrary cutoff date?

There are several data sets to choose from. I could show drastic global cooling if I started with thermometer records and switched to tree ring records 40 years ago. So what?


R406450
1 week ago
tango

May

aux.v., Past tense, might (m©t).

1. To be allowed or permitted to: May I take a swim? Yes, you may. 2. Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility: It may rain this afternoon. 3. Used to express a desire or fervent wish: Long may he live! 4. Used to express contingency, purpose, or result in clauses introduced by that or so that: expressing ideas so that the average person may understand. 5. To be obliged; must. Used in statutes, deeds, and other legal documents. See Usage Note at can1.

—-

It is currently a hypothesis; an interesting one, but you’re competly ignoring one of the key words in the sentence. Another 1/2 mark off for lack of reading comprehension.


R406451
1 week ago
bacchus

Main Entry: 1no
Pronunciation: \©n©\
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English n©, from ne not + © always; akin to Old Norse & Old High German ne not, Latin ne-, Greek n©- — more at aye
Date: before 12th century
1 a chiefly Scottish : not b —used as a function word to express the negative of an alternative choice or possibility
2 : in no respect or degree —used in comparisons
3 : not so —used to express negation, dissent, denial, or refusal
4 —used with a following adjective to imply a meaning expressed by the opposite positive statement
5 —used as a function word to emphasize a following negative or to introduce a more emphatic, explicit, or comprehensive statement
6 —used as an interjection to express surprise, doubt, or incredulity
7 —used in combination with a verb to form a compound adjective
8 : in negation, as in “no evidence linking cosmic rays to warming”

Post Modified: 11/26/09 13:44:42

R406454
1 week ago
Truthcansuk

Floyd – you stupid fuckers are defending something that you can’t provide evidence of.

Floyd is correct. Anyone wanna discuss the facts behind how the NWO (possibly aliens) are trying to kill us all?


R406455
1 week ago
Trainspotter

Lizards TCS, get it right….


R406463
1 week ago
sisyphus

citing the dictionary is faggotry


R406467
1 week ago
xenonix

fn lizardz


R406472
1 week ago
bacchus


R406477
1 week ago
bacchus

Climategate: this is our Berlin Wall moment!

by James Delingpole, the Telegraph

I’ve just had a great, very sympathetic interview about Climategate on LBC radio (London’s main commercial news and talk station) with Petrie Hosken. She told me she has been simply inundated with callers, all of them utterly unconvinced that human influence has made any significant on so-called “Global Warming”. She was desperate to get a few balancing calls from people who do believe in AGW but just couldn’t find any…

[note: I in no way endorse Mr. Delingpole’s politics]

Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Post Modified: 11/26/09 18:57:53

R406478
1 week ago
bacchus

“For the very first time, the Climategate Letters “archived” the deleted portion of the Briffa MXD reconstruction of “Hide the Decline” fame – see here. Gavin Schmidt claimed that the decline had been “hidden in plain sight” (see here. ). This isn’t true.”

“The post-1960 data was deleted from the archived version of this reconstruction at NOAA here and not shown in the corresponding figure in Briffa et al 2001. Nor was the decline shown in the IPCC 2001 graph, one that Mann, Jones, Briffa, Folland and Karl were working in the two weeks prior to the “trick” email (or for that matter in the IPCC 2007 graph, an issue that I’ll return to.)”


R406479
1 week ago
bacchus


R406547
6 days ago
ShiftShapers

Purloined E-mails Don’t Change the Facts: Eugene Robinson: “Stop hyperventilating, all you climate change deniers. The purloined e-mail correspondence published by skeptics last week – portraying some leading climate researchers as petty, vindictive and tremendously eager to make their data fit accepted theories – does not prove that global warming is a fraud.”


R406552
6 days ago
FloydAnderson

R406553
6 days ago
FloydAnderson

Floyd is correct. Anyone wanna discuss the facts behind how the NWO (possibly aliens) are trying to kill us all?

They don’t want to kill us all silly…......they just want to cull about 80-90% of us. I seriously don’t think they are gonna be able to do it though.

They are teh serious big time losers. teh nwo agenda is falling to pieces. makes me laugh mfao. can’t wait for their holograms in the sky. That will be a serious lolz mistake for teh silly old elites..


R406554
6 days ago
FloydAnderson

ahh

/just poured another white russian

i’m drinking it out of this big sturdy wine glass I bought today today at teh liquor store. it’s teh likeable


R406556
6 days ago
FloydAnderson

how about everybody shut teh fuck up for a moment and…......

Post Modified: 11/27/09 18:32:43

R406557
6 days ago
FloydAnderson

Sweet. This is even easier Floyd…. Read Tango’s post and break that into street language. C’mon, I dare you – UNDERSTAND what Tango has brought to the conversation…

how about Tango smokes a joint and then does it


R406572
6 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

Beware!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post Modified: 11/28/09 02:18:32

R406582
5 days ago
ill_logik

who the fuck cares?? industrial civilization is destroying the planet, regardless of wither it’s changing the climate. the same things that supposedly cause climate change are fucking up many other things, and we should seriously stop these practices if we want to live on a habitable planet.


R406584
5 days ago
ShiftShapers

true dat


R406589
5 days ago
FloydAnderson

teh global warming scam is very important to teh elites ill_logik. just like teh club of rome thought up, they want to use it to make humanity teh perceived enemy of itself to assist in teh acceptance of global governance, de-industrialization and their endgame of teh mass kill-off, as well as taxing teh shit out of the already struggling middle and lower class of people. The NWO has been dealt a huge blow.


Phil Jones “can’t remember” what he meant by “hiding the decline.”

Climategate Master Criminal Phil Jones Collected $22.6 Million in Grants

Ice Age Now
November 28, 2009

Excerpts from a post by Michael Shedlock – “It’s now official. Much of the hype about global warming is nothing but a complete scam. The global warming thesis was completely fabricated.

“Inquiring minds are reading Hacked: Hadley CRU FOI2009 Files on The Reference Frame by Luboš Motl, a physicist from the Czech Republic.

“So far, the most interesting file I found in the “documents” directory is pdj_grant_since1990.xls which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected a staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.

“Phil Jones, the main criminal according to this correspondence, has personally confirmed that the website was hacked and that the documents are authentic. See Briefing Room.

“He says that he “can’t remember” what he meant by “hiding the decline.” Well, let me teach him some English. First, dictionaries say that hide means

1. to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered: Where

did she hide her jewels?

2. to obstruct the view of; cover up: The sun was hidden by the clouds.

3. to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret: to hide one’s feelings.

4. to conceal oneself; lie concealed: He hid in the closet.

5. British. a place of concealment for hunting or observing wildlife; hunting blind.

6. hide out, to go into or remain in hiding: After breaking out of jail, he hid out in a deserted farmhouse.

I wonder if Phil remembers the $22.6 million in grants. I wonder if he “remembers” only those things that the IPCC wants him to remember.

See entire great article, entitled “Beware The Ice Age Cometh: Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam”

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html

Thanks to Joe Herr for this link

See also Hacked files expose massive global warming con


R406590
5 days ago
FloydAnderson

Lord Monckton: Shut Down The UN, Arrest Al Gore

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
November 28, 2009

Appearing on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Lord Christopher Monckton went further than ever before in his vehement opposition to the elitists running the climate change scam, calling for the UN to be shut down and for fraudulent peddlers of global warming propaganda like Al Gore to be arrested and criminally prosecuted.

Monckton said that those who are threatening to shut down economies, bankrupt nations, and deepen the problems of the third world by implementing draconian policies in the name of global warming should be indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned “for a very long time”.

“The fraudsters and racketeers from Al Gore to the people at the University of East Anglia who have been making their fortune at the expense of taxpayers and the little guy,” should be criminally charged, said Monckton, in response to the climategate scandal.

“We the people have got to rise up worldwide, found a party in every country which stands for freedom and make sure we fight this bureaucratic communistic world government monster to a standstill – they shall not pass,” he added.

Monckton said that the United Nations should be “closed down,” adding that he talked to a senior UN ambassador in Canada who told him that he no longer saw any purpose in the UN and it exists “only to enrich itself at the expense of the nations it claims to serve, it’s time it was brought to an end.”

“We would all save billions if we shut down the UN and just about all of its hideous bureaucracy,” said Monckton.

Lord Monckton emphasized how the emails released as a result of climategate prove that global warming alarmism was still prevalent in public but behind closed doors, warmist scientist are admitting that the “deniers” as they label people like Monckton are correct.

“Publicly they’re saying the science is settled, we’re all doomed unless you close down the economies of the west, whereas privately they’re saying to each other ‘we’ve got it wrong, none of this adds up and it’s a travesty that we can’t explain it’.”

Monckton also slammed Obama’s science czar John P. Holdren, who in his 1977 book Ecoscience called for draconian population measures to be enforced by a “planetary regime” in the name of saving the earth, as an “openly admitted communist”.

Monckton pointed out how Holdren had been one of the most prominent alarmists in the 70’s warning about the onset of rapid “global cooling”.

“Now with seamless mendacity he says that what we’re now facing is global warming,” said Monckton.

“How can anyone like Holdren stand up with a straight face and expect anyone to believe it,” he added.

Monckton said that the agenda behind the global warming movement was to set up a communistic world government which will be run by people who “do not care how many people they kill with their policies” and that their goal is to “do away with democracy forever by stealth using the excuse to save the planet.”

Monckton said that the people running the scam had a “deliberate desire to control population by killing people in large numbers deliberately if necessary.”

The former advisor to Margaret Thatcher said that the warmists were sounding more and more desperate and knew that they had been rumbled as a result of climategate, which would only make it more urgent for them to try and force through a binding treaty in Copenhagen.

Monckton said that the answer to combating the move towards neo-feudalism and global government was to form a worldwide “freedom party” that would operate nationally in every country in order to defend freedom, democracy and prosperity while routing out every aspect of the communistic takeover.

“Every time these people try to take it away, we in the freedom party will stop them, and I think now is the time,” said Monckton.

Watch the interview below.

Post Modified: 11/28/09 21:16:37

R406591
5 days ago
Truthcansuk

Ok, since you won’t go through Tango’s post, let me ask you again…

Floyd, have you read the e-mails?


R406592
5 days ago
FloydAnderson

I’ve posted screenshots of the emails you stupid fucking pig cunt.


R406593
5 days ago
Truthcansuk

1, Floyd. You’ve posted screenshots of 1 in this thread.

Since Tango actually tried to explain to you what that one meant, I assume you are talking about all the others you have posted?


R406594
5 days ago
Truthcansuk

Floyd – I’ve posted screenshots of the emails you stupid fucking pig cunt.

Floyd, I do understand that you classify me as a troll.. so I’ll give you some advice about ‘trolls’ on the internet: Some of them feel really bad when you call them ‘stupid fucking pig cunt.’ They really do take it to heart. I do not.

It just makes you look silly.

On Edit: Seriously. It affects people’s perception of your ability to not be an idiot. The medium is the message and something-something…

Post Modified: 11/28/09 22:07:01

R406595
5 days ago
FloydAnderson

You are a disgusting heartless nitpicking prissy pig cunt.


R406596
5 days ago
FloydAnderson

Truthcansuk, why the fuck do you keep asking people if they’ve read the emails?

These emails get referred to again and again in these videos and articles and then you can go search and find the exact emails at http://www.eastangliaemails.com/ you fucking soulless pig cunt.

Post Modified: 11/28/09 22:23:43

R406597
5 days ago
xenonix

tcs is not soulless…why, i even have it on good authority that he has rhythm


R406598
5 days ago
tango

how about Tango smokes a joint and then does it

I don’t smoke.

You are a disgusting heartless nitpicking prissy pig cunt.

Yeah, proves him right for asking if you actually read the shit you’re in such a panty-twisting tizzy about. Next thing you know he’ll be asking you to watch a film before giving your review of it, like the fucking nazi jew he is.

Post Modified: 11/29/09 01:04:00

R406599
5 days ago
Fifi_Lamour

“The former advisor to Margaret Thatcher said that the warmists were sounding more and more desperate and knew that they had been rumbled as a result of climategate, which would only make it more urgent for them to try and force through a binding treaty in Copenhagen.”

Wow that’s funny! So, this Lord who is a former advisor to Maggie Thatcher is accusing others of being the “elite” and is proposing to head up a “freedom party” to protect democracy. Hmm, just a thought, but aren’t Lords (and all royalty and nobles) anti-democratic essentially? It’s alway funny when the rich fascists start up “freedom” parties to defend democracy.


R406602
5 days ago
remarcus

shit, been gone a couple days and this thread has turned into another shit hole.

floyd, again, you need to get out more. the evidence that humans are fucking up this planet and its climate is everywhere. go check out a stockyard, rivers in china, clearcuts in the amazon, desertification in the mid-west. try and catch a fucking fish anymore you idiot, uh, i mean, brilliant intardnet researcher

or maybe you just argue against ACC because alex and infowars is your daddy and it would fuck up your entire world view to witness the collapse going on all around you and that there are no reptilians to blame save maybe the ones in your disassociated and needy imagination. just greedy, consuming, ignorant humans.

oh, and really, have you read more than 1 fucking email yet, even if they are hand-picked and spoonfed to you?

whether you know it or not, you and alex defend the whole oil fed elitist corporate economic pig agenda

are you a shill or just a tool, dude?

Post Modified: 11/29/09 01:30:46

R406606
5 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

“are you a shill or just a tool, dude?”

Hes a fuck-tard.

In other words he’s a combination of both being fucked and retarded. I think this happens when sister chromatids fail to split during Anaphase2.


R406607
5 days ago
Barredup

“the evidence that humans are fucking up this planet and its climate is everywhere. “

Whoa there. The planet. Yep no argument. We are fucking it over at a clipping pace with no sign of any slow down. But the climate. No way.

I remember when I was just a youngster back in the seventies, wavey fade out.

Back then the same pack of death and destruction hypesters were warning anyone who would listen that we were all going to freeze to death in a man made ice age because human pollution was reflecting the suns rays AWAY from the earth and thats why temperatures were cooling, and they were too (cooling that is).

Then an unfrotunate thing happened. In the eighties temperatures began to rise. Did this worry the climate alarmists. Hell NO. They just did a complete 180 and came up with “We are all going to die in an inferno because of man made HEATING”.

Then a really unfortunate thing happened, big buisiness and its political wing (the govenment), who both by the way completely ridiculed the very concept of global cooling and global warming, found that they could make some money out of it by wacking a new tax on the peons for the CO2 that they accused of creating the warming, and the religious movement began.

Then an extreemly unfortunate thing happened, for them. At the end of the 1990s temperatures started to cool again (scream natural cycle). In fact the warmest year in the past 20 was 1998 and in the last three years all of the warming since the 1980s has been reversed.

With their billion dollar scam sinking like a polar bear on the Titanic they started fudging the data and screaming from the roof tops that we were all going to die. Retreating glaciers, melting poles, dying Polar Bears and next dying fried up people unless we pay new taxes right now. Unfortunatey the retreating Indian glaciers have nothing to do with any global warming (at least that what Indias leading climate scientist says), the polar ice caps have increased 30% in the last three years and polar bear numbers are actually rising (at least thats what the experts in these fields not employed by the IPCC say).

Then something wonderous happened. Someone at the East Anglian CRU found a concience in a lost filing cabinate and released the emails that show what a greedy, money hungry, power mad pack of shysters are providing the data for the so called Global Warming.

By the by. There is absolutely no scientific connection between rising/falling world
temperatures and carbon dioxide. The only connection is that in tree ring and ice core samples when temperatures rise so does CO2 and when they fall so does CO2. When all of this Global Warming farce blows over you will find that it is temperatures that drive CO2 levels not the other way around.

When the Oceans warm the release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, when they cool they absorb it.

That big yellowy coloured orb in the sky thats hard to look at. The one thats created the cold of Ice Ages, the heat of the early Eocene, medieval warm periods and medieval mini-iceages. The one that has lead this world to blistering heat and freezing cold over millenia is the driving force of our climate and it moves in regular cycles that we have yet to understand.

The sun controls our climate and no amount of Taxation will infulence it one little bit.


R406615
4 days ago
Snark

explain man-made climate change to me remarcus. just give me the evidence that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate. should be easy for you since you are so convinced.

Go read the IPCC report and shut the fuck up. Why should anybody bend over backward to spoon-feed you information that’s publicly available? Are you capable of understanding that which you criticize?

Post Modified: 11/29/09 10:55:01

R406616
4 days ago
Snark

Snark disappeared from this debate not long after having a conversation with Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.,

Actually, I disappeared from this site because its chief virtue at this point – now that the majority of sane, insightful posters have left – is to demonstrate the Kruger-Dunning effect and annoy anybody who doesn’t suck off Alex Jones.

I posted my theory on AGW (primarily hydrological, not CO2 or carbon cycle based)

Until you publish it, you really shouldn’t call it a theory. It’s a hypothesis.

Post Modified: 11/29/09 10:54:30

R406617
4 days ago
Snark

Back then the same pack of death and destruction hypesters were warning anyone who would listen that we were all going to freeze to death in a man made ice age because human pollution was reflecting the suns rays AWAY from the earth and thats why temperatures were cooling, and they were too (cooling that is).

Then an unfrotunate thing happened. In the eighties temperatures began to rise. Did this worry the climate alarmists. Hell NO. They just did a complete 180 and came up with “We are all going to die in an inferno because of man made HEATING”.

Myth. It’s really not reflective of your intellectual honesty to repeat things that have long since been debunked.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970’s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970’s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.

I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.

Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40’s to the 70’s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.

The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970’s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970’s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.

George Will asserts that Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”. The quote is from Hays et al. But the quote is taken grossly out of context. Here, in full, is the small section dealing with prediction:

Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted. One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).

The point about timescales is worth noticing: predicting an ice age (even in the absence of human forcing) is almost impossible within a timescale that you could call “imminent” (perhaps a century: comparable to the scales typically used in global warming projections) because ice ages are slow, when caused by orbital forcing type mechanisms.

Will also quotes “a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” (Science, March 1, 1975). The quote is accurate, but the source isn’t. The piece isn’t from “Science”; it’s from “Science News”. There is a major difference: Science is (jointly with Nature) the most prestigous journal for natural science; Science News is not a peer-reviewed journal at all, though it is still respectable. In this case, its process went a bit wrong: the desire for a good story overwhelmed its reading of the NAS report which was presumably too boring to present directly.

The Hays paper above is the most notable example of the “ice age” strand. Indeed, its a very important paper in the history of climate, linking observed cycles in ocean sediment cores to orbital forcing periodicities. Of the other strand, aerosol cooling, Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate” is the best exemplar. This contains the quote that quadrupling aerosols could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 degrees K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!. But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not aerosols would so increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the aerosol problem). There are, incidentally, other scientific problems with the paper: notably that the model used was only suitable for small perturbations but the results are for rather large perturbations; and that the estimate of CO2 sensitivity was too low by a factor of about 3.

Probably the best summary of the time was the 1975 NAS/NRC report. This is a serious sober assessment of what was known at the time, and their conclusion was that they didn’t know enough to make predictions. From the “Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations”, we find that they said we should:

1. Establish National climatic research program 2. Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man 3. Develope Climatic index monitoring program 4. Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs 5. Adoption and development of International climatic research program 6. Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network

Which is to say, they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30 years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of climate science.

Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of todays science, and with extra data available:

1. The cooling trend from the 40’s to the 70’s now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available. 2. Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM). 3. Interpretations of future changes in the Earth’s orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.

Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now.


R406618
4 days ago
Truthcansuk

Floyd – Truthcansuk, why the fuck do you keep asking people if they’ve read the emails?

Floyd, have you read the e-mails?


R406623
4 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

^ Err, no but he’s watched a video about it on youtube!


R406624
4 days ago
FloydAnderson

There are some good ones

here

here

and

here


R406625
4 days ago
FloydAnderson

Go read the IPCC report and shut the fuck up. Why should anybody bend over backward to spoon-feed you information that’s publicly available? Are you capable of understanding that which you criticize?

The IPCC report that uses CRU data snarkie?


R406627
4 days ago
tango

Whoa, Snark…


R406628
4 days ago
FloydAnderson

hey circle jerker…


R406629
4 days ago
FloydAnderson

A Call to Action: Stop the Climate Scientific Global Dictatorship

Adam Murdock, M.D.
Infowars
November 29, 2009

As a physician and as one that has conducted research and published in peer-reviewed journals, I am intimately connected to the scientific world and the scientific process. The scientific process requires a complete objectivity, a complete reliance on the data. It does not rely on what politicians think, or what the supposed majority of other scientists believe, or even upon what was thought to be proven in the past. It requires continual scrutiny and a stubborn willingness to be critical of everything proven and unproven. At times this stubborn willingness to continually analyze and reanalyze established beliefs places the scientific world in disarray as new beliefs replace old. What marks someone as a true scientist is a willingness to let go of previously held beliefs when the facts turn in another direction, even at expense of one’s established research, reputation, and tenure.

A scientific dictatorship occurs when this willingness to follow the data is disregarded and replaced with political correctness, consensus, economic motives, or personal hopes and aspirations. This dictatorship which attempts to suppress alternative viewpoints or theories is merely an attempt to make a scientist’s own selfish view preeminent at the expense of the scientific process and sometimes the truth. Inevitably, this dictatorship uses tactics like vilification, name calling, discrimination, and sometimes even threats of physical incarceration or violence in order to enforce the accepted dogma.

There are no greater examples of this than the ordeal of scientists that challenged the belief that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. The scientists that challenged the existing scientific aristocracy or dictatorship of the time were often incarcerated and even sometimes put to death. If true scientists like Copernicus and Galileo and their counterparts lived in a world filled with true followers of the scientific process they might have encountered some initial skepticism but would not have suffered like they did. True scientists would have evaluated the evidence that they presented and quickly have come to the same conclusion themselves. The fact that this didn’t happen was evidence of an over-arching scientific dogma or dictatorship at that time. Their theories threatened the position, theories, and power of the existing scientific elite of their day.

The same type of scientific dogma or dictatorship exists in the world today. There are many examples of modern scientists that have challenged the accepted scientific dogma. Oftentimes, they have had to surmount tremendous obstacles and go to great lengths to prove they were right.

It was only twenty years ago that two Australian scientists, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall implicated a bacteria, Helicobacter pylori, as the causative agent in many intestinal ulcers. Prior to 1982, the predominant theory for the cause of ulcers was overproduction of stomach acid. The prevailing wisdom of the time was that if only stomach acid could be reduced then ulcers could be controlled. Of course, this would lead to lifelong treatments for acid suppression. When these two scientists proposed a simple bacterium as the cause, which could be eradicated with a simple antibiotic cocktail, they were more than met with initial skepticism – they were mocked and ridiculed. It was only because of tireless persistence on their part, which included ingesting the very causative organism in question and testing their hypothesis on themselves, that eventually the established dogma began to subside.

Along the same lines it is within the last twenty years the cyclo-oxygenase type 2 (COX-2) inhibitors like the infamous Vioxx were touted as the new anti-inflammatory medications for this generation. They would replace similar medications like Ibuprofen and Advil. When evidence surfaced that these medications may be causing increased incidences of heart attacks and deaths, they were forced off the market. Unfortunately, because the company and its’ scientists had great reputations, profits, and careers at stake it may have taken 3 years after the associations with heart attacks were discovered before the drug was removed from the market. It is not clear how many people have suffered the ultimate consequence for scientists letting ulterior motives cloud scientific purity.

This brings to me to the most important issue of our day – the debate over whether climate change is related to man-made green house gases or if it is related to natural processes such as sun-spot cycles. While it is not the purpose of this article to discuss the science around this discussion in detail, what can be illuminated is the presence of a dogmatic scientific bureaucratic dictatorship that has one particular view in mind at the expense of all others. This view contends that mankind is responsible for global warming, the inevitable consequence of which will be a collapse of the earths vital ecosystems. In order to stop man and the collapse of the earth, the global scientific and political dictatorship would have the first world nations dramatically reduce their production of green-house gases. This will be accomplished by the cap-and-trade system, which would de-industrialize, depopulate, and subjugate the peoples of Europe and America and transfer their wealth to the third world and to the sponsors and ministers of the system.

As the EU President Herman Von Rompuy recently put it:

“2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”

It is clear from this statement that the climate agenda goes hand in hand with the plan for global governance. In fact, it may serve as the key stone to the foundation of just such a superstate. It is precisely because the globalists are using this issue as the means for attaining their long sought after dominion that the climate change debate is the most important issue of this generation.

What about the science that is being used as one of the stepping stones to global governance? Has global temperature really been increasing in lock-step with carbon-dioxide emissions?

Climate change skeptics have recently challenged the assumption of climate change fanatics by pointing out that the global temperature doesn’t appear to have continued to rise over the past decade or more, despite a continued surge in carbon-dioxide emissions. In fact, the temperatures may have decreased slightly. Yet, this information has fallen on seemingly deaf ears in the climate community. Fortunately, the question was recently answered by the climatologist global warming alarmists themselves. In emails that were leaked from the bastion of climate activism, the climate research unit (CRU) of East Anglia University, are some really startling yet somehow expected revelations about the real data, propaganda, intimidation, and fraud perpetrated by the climate change scientific community.

In fact, in response to a recent skeptical article entitled “Whatever happened to Global Warming” by Paul Hudson, a BBC weatherman, one of the lead authors of the IPCC report commented within the private leaked emails:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

In commenting about Hudson’s piece, climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University added:

“extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?”

What is clear from the conservations in these emails is that not only is the science not settled but there was a systematic attempt by these scientists to keep any contrary viewpoints out of the media, published literature, and the political arena. Does this sound like people genuinely seeking after truth or just scientists trying to protect their own turf, reputations, and agenda – whatever the cost?

In another email, the director of the East Anglia climate center, Phil Jones, suggested that we:

“will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

This email highlights a very important but little understood point outside of academic circles. Central to life of an academic researcher is their ability to publish peer-reviewed papers in to the literature. Often times, the amount of published material they produce correlates with their ability to become tenured and to continue to receive grants. What is particularly disturbing about these emails is they demonstrate a willingness to destroy other people’s lives by making it difficult for them to publish.

An example of this scientific shakedown by these supposed scientists occurs in email by Michael Mann that suggests destroying a journal that dared publish these alternative viewpoints. He writes:

“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

In another of the emails, Tim Wigley says that pressure should be applied to a particular journal, Climate Research, to fall in line with the established climate change order. He writes that the publisher needed to be more concerned with how publishing alternative viewpoints, or as he puts it “misinformation,” would be “perceived.” He added: “whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about– it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.”

This scientific witch hunt is vaguely reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. It is not about the truth of their ideas, it is about the opposition. If it takes destroying their opponents’ careers in order to perpetuate their climate fraud, then they seem perfectly willing to do it. Another excerpt demonstrates this career-destroying intention of theirs. In a comment about James Saiers of the Geophysical Research Letters journal:

“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted”

In response to these vicious attacks, one of the subjects of some of the emails, Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute, said in response that: “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”

To add insult to injury these very same scientists also write about their attempts to fraudulently distort their own data so they can continue the charade. In another email by Phil Jones the truth about the agenda comes out. It turns out they are more worried about the climate agenda going forward than what their data actually shows. If they have to distort the data then they will do what it takes. He writes:

“In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.”

In another email they write:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Here we sit on the verge of subjecting ourselves to the tyranny of global government in the name of protecting the planet. Now that the truth has been established and the hypocrisy and error revealed, let us press our congressman and senators before it is too late. In a matter of a couple weeks the most important conference of our lifetimes will convene in Copenhagen in order to decide our fate. I urge you with all the energies of my heart; let us pull down the global warming false idol worshippers and their climate dictatorship while we still have time.

Post Modified: 11/29/09 14:44:14

R406630
4 days ago
Truthcansuk

Dear Floyd,

Snark Explains

Or whatever…


R406631
4 days ago
FloydAnderson

more like damage control TCS


R406632
4 days ago
FloydAnderson

Climate Change: This is the Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.

Christopher Booker
Telegraph
28 Nov 2009

A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term “Climategate” to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC’s scientific elite, including not just the “Hockey Team”, such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore’s ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got “lost”. Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to “adjust” recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the “hockey stick”, he excoriated the way in which this same “tightly knit group” of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to “peer review” each other’s papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.


R406633
4 days ago
Truthcansuk

Floyd – more like damage control TCS

Yeah, I figured you wouldn’t care.

Hey, as a CIA operative I’m bound by something-something to at least try…


R406634
4 days ago
FloydAnderson

that must suck


R406635
4 days ago
Truthcansuk

Dude, you have no idea…


R406638
4 days ago
tango

Heh, so awesome:


R406641
4 days ago
Memnoch07

Whenever there is anything here about climate change or global warming or science. Every single person here forgets about peak oil.

You all need to remember that sometime in the next 10-20 years we are going to start to have rationing oil. And all the scientists and lizards in the world are not going to change this fact.

I for one, cant fucking wait.


R406642
4 days ago
Memnoch07

But in the meantime, it would be highly entertaining if hoards of morons go and burn down climate scientists research stations.


R406646
4 days ago
SunTzu

5 . .

. . for Mem’s last comment

R406647
4 days ago
SunTzu


R406648
4 days ago
Memnoch07

Latest, not last. Its not that great of a comment that I am going to kill myself. Sorry.


R406649
4 days ago
SunTzu

damn – oh well, I live in

Post Modified: 11/29/09 17:57:36

R406655
4 days ago
sisyphus

I for one, cant fucking wait

me too


R406658
4 days ago
Barredup

SNARK

Show me the science that proves that CO2 emmisions cause the planet to warm.


R406661
4 days ago
remarcus

she looks hot snark, go for it bro..

sys and mem, peak oil is a myth, we have other planets to conquer


R406682
3 days ago
xenonix

they didn’t get the email on that


R406695
3 days ago
FloydAnderson

R406697
3 days ago
SunTzu

they didn’t get the email on that

just one more thing to add to the looooong list of things those two tards don’t yet ‘get’


R406742
2 days ago
jonbray

AGW???? didn’t you get the memo it is ACC. It is to easy to debunk warming, but change that one is too true.

For example this morning was cold as a coal miners balls. So cold my bio-diesel gelled up and my merc wouldn’t start. But as THE SUN came out it warmed up and my benz cracked like a champ. Just in a few short hours the climate change…........ proof of climate change…....... all caused by THE FUCKING SUN.

That is the main source of energy for the earth. Everything else is just feedback, distortions of what ever energy happened to hit the Earth from the sun.
Gases only have a ability to hold that energy for a finite time. Therefore any large temperature changes would have to have its cause from the source energy and not from the feedback from that energy.

And for arguments sake lets say that gases could change the climate without the source of their energy changing. Look at the make up of our atmosphere.

78% nitrogen
21% oxygen
1%- 4% avg. water vapor (which is also affected by the sun)
.93 argon
.038 Co2

As you could see unless Co2 has some serious thermal conductivity then it is highly unlikely that it alone could change the ground temperature at all.
This combined with Co2 absorbing all the radiation it can hold within 30 feet in the troposphere where it is very cold, makes it a very unlikely that it could change the climate at any reachable level.

I think that we all have a stake in the future of our planet and should do everything we can to preserve our resources. We should stop looking at what we disagree on and see where we can meet eye to eye.

I’ll go first I think that GWhunt has mad the most likely case for any climate change. Water vapor has a much higher heat conductivity and higher concentration in the atmosphere than Co2. We have also change waters natural flow and displacement around urban areas where temperatures have changed.

Shifty has also stated that this is clearly a case of the state taking a possible crisis and enriching themselves with their solution.

I agree with both of them, even though I don’t. You see we can be civil and disagree at the same time.

This is largely a battle of egos. It is hard to admit you were wrong. “I was/am wrong” about a lot of things, but when I see that something is more fitting of the truth then I adapt. Seeing the error in my ways and build anew. I love failing for it teaches me to succeed. This five minutes of my time I spent typing this will uncountably fail to change anyone’s mind, but will learn from that failure too.


R406744
2 days ago
SunTzu

I’m convinced that you’re correct


R406756
2 days ago
aganunitsi

That is the main source of energy for the earth. Everything else is just feedback, distortions of what ever energy happened to hit the Earth from the sun.
Gases only have a ability to hold that energy for a finite time. Therefore any large temperature changes would have to have its cause from the source energy and not from the feedback from that energy.

If you want to know what affect the atmosphere has, look at the climate of the moon. Virtually the exact same orbit as the Earth, in terms of astronomical units, but it reaches over 100 degrees Celsius in the day and drops below negative 150 degrees Celsius at night. Large temperature changes (compared to earth), despite a virtually identical source of energy.


R406757
2 days ago
tango

As you could see unless Co2 has some serious thermal conductivity then it is highly unlikely that it alone could change the ground temperature at all.

Hi jonbray, thermal conductivity isn’t the issue with carbon dioxide, but its radiative forcing (there’s a really interesting graph and description of radiative forcing of CO2 on that page, that I won’t post here, but I encourage you to check out)

Basically, the earth reflects solar energy into the atmosphere, which can re-reflect it back to earth, trapping the energy in as heat. Interestingly, the CO2 molecule vibrates at just the right frequencies to intercept and re-radiate solar energy. That’s a lot different than conductivity, where heat energy is basically passed from atom to atom.

Because of this, focusing on the amount of a percent in the atmosphere is a bit misleading. If you look at the change in concentration for any given time scale, along with the overall effect on trapping heat, the picture becomes more clear.

I personally think that GWHunters hypothesis is very interesting, and there is a indeed some amount of research that supports some of his ideas (additionally, I’ve really come to enjoy GWHunters involvement in this discussion – he always brings some interesting thoughts and usually does so in a respectful manner).

However, if you look at the overall effect of CO2 on current increases in radiation forcing is become more clear how such a small change to CO2 concentrations (which can be largely traced to anthropogenic sources) can lead to some pretty huge effects on temperature.

I hope this helped clear up the misunderstanding you had. I don’t really keep up with the science of CO2 much anymore, I mainly work with nitrogen cycling in the terrestrial biosphere, but I’ll do my best to either answer any questions you have or pass them along to more knowledge researchers.

/yeah, yeah, I know, I’m a moran, shill, retard, asshole, [chicken fucker climate tard apperently] ect., ect., but hopefully this can help people better understand this stuff. People who are too intellecutally impotent to discuss anything remotely rationally and respectfully, by all means continue with the name calling.

Post Modified: 12/02/09 01:04:31

R406782
2 days ago
SunTzu

latest Hockey Stick graph

Click it

I’m a moran, shill, retard, asshole, ect., ect., but hopefully this can help people better understand this stuff.

Nah, you’re just a chicken-fucking Climatard

Post Modified: 12/02/09 00:29:34

R406790
2 days ago
SunTzu

I personally think that GWHunters hypothesis is very interesting, and there is a indeed some amount of research that supports some of his ideas (additionally, I’ve really come to enjoy GWHunters involvement in this discussion – he always brings some interesting thoughts and usually does so in a respectful manner).

you’re so full of shit

You’ve done nothing but repatedly attack him from the get-go


R406793
2 days ago
tango

LOL

/I’ll add chicken-fucking Climatard to the list, that’s awesome.


R406817
2 days ago
SunTzu

don’t forget to add ‘full of shit’ while yer at it


R406819
2 days ago
SunTzu

BTW your little Eco-‘science’ ‘explanation’ sounds lovely and vewy vewy impressive until one remembers that the so-called ‘correlation’ between temperature and CO2 levels is now discredited.

When one remembers that, your little Eco-‘science’ ‘explanation’ just ends up looking like pseudo-scientific verbal-garbage uttered by a true-believing over-educated chicken-fucking Climatard incapable of independant thought and logical reasoning

Post Modified: 12/02/09 07:30:15

R406820
2 days ago
SunTzu

Other than that, though, it was quite impressive


R406834
2 days ago
remarcus

you forgot douchebag, sun

true-believing over-educated chicken fucking douchebag climatard. has a better ring


R406837
1 day ago
SunTzu

thanks.

I’d be lost without you guys, you know that, dontcha?


R406845
1 day ago
tango

BTW your little Eco-‘science’ ‘explanation’ sounds lovely and vewy vewy impressive until one remembers that the so-called ‘correlation’ between temperature and CO2 levels is now discredited.

The post-1960 correlation between tree-ring size and temperature was “discredited”, not CO2 and temperature.

/I absolutely am a true-believing over-educated chicken fucking douchebag climatard, but I think it’s important that we’re clear about what those e-mails actually said.

Post Modified: 12/02/09 12:11:19

R406848
1 day ago
Trainspotter

It may be worth pointing out (despite the risk of joining the chicken-eco-tard douchebag club) that what we call the “Greenhouse Effect” has been understood scientifically for a very long time. And unquestioned; never accused of being whacko science, never tainted with conspiratorial bullshit. It just is the way it is.

Tango can correct me if/as required but I do believe that the role of CO2 in that effect has also been understood for a very long time. I’m sure it pretty much pre-dates David Rockefeller.

So just how far back in time are we supposed to believe that the plans for this grand conspiracy were initially formed?


R406850
1 day ago
xenonix

it all started with the knights templar


R406854
1 day ago
Trainspotter

it all started with the knights templar

Of course. Forgive me, I don’t knwo how I overlooked that….


R406858
1 day ago
SunTzu

The post-1960 correlation between tree-ring size and temperature was “discredited”, not CO2 and temperature.

i’m not talking about the emails, I’m taking about the FACT that despite there being no reduction in atmospheric CO2 levels, (in fact there has been a definite increaase) there HAS been a reduction in recorded temperatures over the last decade

Which, were you capable of independant thought and logical reasoning, you would immediately understand that this, at best (from your point of view,) casts serious doubt on your theory tthat the increase in CO2 = Increase in Temperature. At worst is shows that you idiots don’t know yer ass from yer elbow. You are after all dealing with a Chaotic system, and your simplistic reasoning is looking particularly useless in light of what now appears to be evidence of the non-correlation evident in the Temp/CO2 hypothesis

So despite the apparent elegence of the maths and the apparent solidity of the so-called ‘science’ behind it all – it does appear that the theory is just a load of pseudo-scientific hogwash

Tango can correct me if/as required but I do believe that the role of CO2 in that effect has also been understood for a very long time.

major fail


R406859
1 day ago
SunTzu

Since in this thread I’m not alleging any conspiracy (though unlike you gullible idiots i haven’t ruled one out either) your attempts at dismissing it on the basis of ‘Conspiracy’ are kinda pathetic.

I think it stems from the fact that you morons have a fundamental misunderstanding of how ‘Science’ is conducted in the real world.

Essentially each scientist takes on good faith the peer-reviewd conclusions of others who came before.

If the peer-reviewed process is found to be flawed through fraud in any way, it casts doubt on the whole series of conclusions based on that process.

Similarily, and more relevantly for you tards, if some fundamental mistake is made or if there is a flaw in the reasoning/methods used which is not identified before the ‘science’ becomes accepted, then once again the whole process, and the whole series of conclusions based on that process, are ‘tainted’.

In the case of tango’s flawed CO2 hypothesis: Since, despite all the inelegant sophistry the FACT remains that there has been an increase in CO2 while at the same time a decrease in Temperature has been observed. Therefore the CO2 hypothesis is proved false through simple empirical observations.

So no matter how much you want it to be true and no matter how many times, nor how many different ways, Tango choses to explain his theory: it simply cannot be true given the observations of temperature over the last decade

I understand you moronic chicken-fucking clima-tards may have a hard time processing this very unwelcome FACT, nonetheless it is a FACT.

Tango’s refusal to acknowledge any of this is mere testament to unwavering support in an obviously flawed process and indicates the quasi-religious nature of his belief in the ‘science’ of Global Warming Climate Change teh Threat to the Biosphere !!111111!!!!ONEoneONE

Post Modified: 12/02/09 14:01:27

R406863
1 day ago
tango

here HAS been a reduction in recorded temperatures over the last decade

Just to touch on this point for a second. There absolutely has been a decrease in temperatures over the last half of the last decade, since about 2005. However, as we all know we are looking at trends that are (a) over longer time scales and (b) cyclical.

This last point is important. The temperature fluctuates in a cyclical fashion, as many natural systems do. If you isolate just the past five years, there has been a slight decline in temperature. If you look at a regression of the past 10 years, the temeprature has increased, and if you look at the temperature over the past 100 years, there has been a dramatic increase, despite regular fluctuations.

Also, researchers must differentiate temperature anomaly with estabished historical temperature cycling.

In this context, your point about the last decade is interesting, but ultimately it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

For example, although I don’t really want to get into a graph-off (we all see how that worked out for you), I do think it is important to use the below graphs to visualize long term temperature trends:

Fig 1 – cyclical temperature cycling showing the last 5 years of decline in temperature anomaly, with a linear regression showing the overall positive trend.

Fig 2 – Instrumental global surface temperature measurements, showing temperature anomalies in degrees

Although I agree 100% with you about the flawed nature of peer-reviewed studies. I mean, I have a dozen or so publications, and I can barely read or write at a fourth grade level ;)

Post Modified: 12/02/09 13:40:59

R406867
1 day ago
SunTzu

For example, although I don’t really want to get into a graph-off (we all see how that worked out for you),

keygen/Tango – Chicken-fuckers acting like fuckers of chickens does not in the least bother me.

I mean what else would one expect from fuckers of chickens ?

just to touch on this point for a second. There absolutely has been a decrease in temperatures over the last half of the last decade, since about 2005. However, as we all know we are looking at trends that are (a) over longer time scales and (b) cyclical.

hahahaha

SO: when the cyclical nature of temperature is pointed out by skeptics, chicken-fucker clima-tard ‘Scientismists’ heap scorn on the heads of skeptics with a chorus of sheep-like bleating of the phrase; ‘The science is settled’

BUT

When the fact that declining temperatures totally disprove your CO2 hypothesis is pointed out to you, you chicken fucker clima-tard ‘Scientismists’ immediately hide behind the cyclical nature of temperature which you previously dismissed out of hand.

You morons are a hoot

You are just proving what I said earlier about you being incapable of independant thought and logical reasoning, without you even realising it!

OH the lulz!

You pointing out that you ‘have a dozen or so publications’ does not impress anyone but the easily impressed (chicken fucker climatards for example) and does nothing but cause me despair at the quality of graduates being produced in Moose-molester-land.

We as a race are truely fucked if you are in any way a representative sample of the ‘best and brightest’ that universities can produce.

A total waste of tuition fees imo – your parents should demand a refund and an apology

Post Modified: 12/02/09 14:59:11

R406866
1 day ago
FloydAnderson

This last point is important. The temperature fluctuates in a cyclical fashion, as many natural systems do. If you isolate just the past five years, there has been a slight decline in temperature. If you look at a regression of the past 10 years, the temeprature has increased, and if you look at the temperature over the past 100 years, there has been a dramatic increase, despite regular fluctuations.

Tango, are you of the belief that CO2 is driving the changes in the climate?


R406869
1 day ago
SunTzu

as I said earlier, Tango/Keygen:

No matter how much you want it to be true and no matter how many times, nor how many different ways, Tango chooses to explain his theory: it simply cannot be true given the observations of temperature over the last decade

Post Modified: 12/02/09 14:52:01

R406870
1 day ago
SunTzu

From National Geographic:

“Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.“

From MIT on Pluto:

“the average surface temperature of the nitrogen ice on Pluto has increased slightly less than 2 degrees Celsius over the past 14 years.”

Since Pluto is moving further away from the Sun and continuing to warm despite that fact, it indicates that something doesn’t fit into “Solar Constant” dismissal theories.

From Space.com on Jupiter:

“The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.”

From MIT on Triton:

“At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming. Percentage-wise, it’s a very large increase,” said Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and director of the Wallace Astrophysical Observatory. The 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about minus-392 degrees Fahrenheit to about minus-389 degrees Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of about 22 degrees Fahrenheit.”

So there is Global Warming on at least 4 other bodies in our Solar System that coincides with the recent warming on Earth. Doesn’t this point strongly towards the Sun or some other Cosmic force as the cause?

On the origin of the runaway global warming theory of CO2 Feedback and Venus (PDF):

“Why is the albedo of Venus important? When the albedo is at 0.80, the Global Warming Theory falls apart. . .

The carbon dioxide levels on Earth have risen from approximately 0.028% to 0.036% in the last few decades. It is a major stretch to compare this with Venus at a 96.500% carbon dioxide level and promote an uncontrollable runaway condition. Earth in its early history, 385 million years ago, had an atmosphere with 10 times the present carbon dioxide levels. Those elevated levels did not produce runaway global warming then, so why should we theorize that it would today?”

Pre-conceived agendas and a scorched earth policy of accusing any critics of complicity with Big Oil or the Republican Party impedes the scientific process. Likening people who do not agree with doomsday Anthropogenic Global Warming theories to Holocaust Deniers does not get us closer to the truth. In Science, when did “Skeptic” become such a bad word?

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change:

“The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That leveling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulfuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.”

Open Letter of Resignation to the IPCC from Chris Landsea:

“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence:

“But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”

MIT Professor Richard Lindzen

as I said earlier, Tango/Keygen:

No matter how much you want it to be true and no matter how many times, nor how many different ways, Tango chooses to explain his theory: it simply cannot be true given the observations of temperature over the last decade

the idiot climatards will prolly come out with some more pseudo-scientific soundbite sophistry to ‘explain away’ all of this, but nonetheless

No matter how much you want it to be true and no matter how many times, nor how many different ways, Tango chooses to explain his theory: it simply cannot be true given the observations of temperature over the last decade

Post Modified: 12/02/09 20:01:28

R406871
1 day ago
Trainspotter

Tango…

Pretty graphs – $5.00
Getting the facts straight in a language we can all (..or should be able to) understand – $15.00

Pulling off such amid the shitshow that is this thread without surrendering to the general lack of civility – Priceless.


R406875
1 day ago
FloydAnderson

Getting the facts straight in a language we can all (..or should be able to) understand – $15.00

and those facts are what?


R406876
1 day ago
Truthcansuk

sigh…


R406877
1 day ago
FloydAnderson

sigh…

what are the facts?


R406878
1 day ago
SunTzu

Pulling off such amid the shitshow that is this thread without surrendering to the general lack of civility – Priceless.

hahahaha

this is probably the first time he’s manged that – previously he’s been one of the first to fling shit loads of ad hom.

Your sycophantic rimming of tango is cute, though

Tango’s new-found willingness to attempt civil discourse is doubly ironic since it just happens to coincide with an ever-accumulating mountain of evidence the effects of which are totally overwhelming any case he can make in defense of his ridiculous and by now obviously false hypothesis.

You climatards are what’s priceless – you couldn’t put a monetary value on the lulz you guys are providing.

In fact I should probably pay YOU for the never ending stream of very entertaing stupidity you guys are producing.

I haven’t had this much fun in ages – thanks!

Post Modified: 12/02/09 15:21:05

R406880
1 day ago
FloydAnderson

Tango, Trainspotter, Truthcansuk –

Is CO2 a significant factor in driving global temperature?


R406882
1 day ago
HackMkUltra

they wont ever change Floyd, SunTzu, if the tables were turned and data was leaked from some big oil company proving their theories they would be all over it, its a sick joke….

I hope they are CIA funded hacks, cause if not it only proves how fucked humanity is…


R406883
1 day ago
HackMkUltra

good job though boys, you have carried the torch, even now that the lighthouse has been abandoned by the keepers…


R406884
1 day ago
Truthcansuk

they wont ever change Floyd, SunTzu, if the tables were turned and data was leaked from some big oil company proving their theories they would be all over it, its a sick joke….

Hack, you are rarely this stupid, so it really stands out.

If climate information was leaked from “some big oil company proving their theories” then no, I very much doubt any of us would be posting it on a placard as a ‘supporting source.’ Unlike some people I could mention, who jump on any shit that supports their own views whether it’s a Glen Beck piece, an Alex Jones rant, a douchebag politician or chicken entrails your dog puked up.

I hope they are CIA funded hacks, cause if not it only proves how fucked humanity is…

And sometimes I really hope you’re a semi-functional 16 yr old that lives in a bubble. It would explain so much.


R406885
1 day ago
FloydAnderson

R406887
1 day ago
aganunitsi

Since, despite all the inelegant sophistry the FACT remains that there has been an increase in CO2 while at the same time a decrease in Temperature has been observed. Therefore the CO2 hypothesis is proved false through simple empirical observations.

Well not THAT empirical observation. Starting a fire in a fireplace is undeniably going to increase the heat of a room. Opening the doors and windows to let in cold air, even if the final temperature of the room drops, does not provide empirical evidence that the fire didn’t produce heat.

The CO2 as greenhouse gas hypothesis claims that as atmospheric CO2 ratios increase, global temperature will be higher than it would have been otherwise. It doesn’t say that temperature can’t go down. If it did, anyone could disprove the theory overnight, bonehead – oh my god the sun set and it got colder, but the CO2 ratio kept going up!


R406888
1 day ago
FloydAnderson

The CO2 as greenhouse gas hypothesis claims that as atmospheric CO2 ratios increase, global temperature will be higher than it would have been otherwise.

The whole point is whether CO2 is a significant factor in driving global temperature….......because teh solution of reducing emissions kinda depends on CO2 emissions being a problem.


R406894
1 day ago
SunTzu

The CO2 as greenhouse gas hypothesis claims that as atmospheric CO2 ratios increase, global temperature will be higher than it would have been otherwise. It doesn’t say that temperature can’t go down. If it did, anyone could disprove the theory overnight, bonehead – oh my god the sun set and it got colder, but the CO2 ratio kept going up!

given what the Harry_Read_Me file says, that statement is hilarious, and I’m pretty sure you have no idea what the fuck I’m referring to at all, hahahahahahaha

Oh never change Ag. You guys just brighten my day no end. I don’t know what I’d do without ya, ya little tyke. Honest – I love you guys – endless hours of fun laughing my ass off at you. Thanks once again. Really: I should be paying you guys – I’m having tooooo much fun – it’s almost obscene.

Post Modified: 12/02/09 19:11:48

R406897
1 day ago
FloydAnderson

R406899
1 day ago
SunTzu

You guys never read The Emperors New Clothes, Or Alice in Wonderland when you were kids, did ya?

OR if you did, you certainly didn’t learn a fuckin thing from the experience.

I can tell

hahahahahahahahahah


R406900
1 day ago
Truthcansuk

Sunny-T – Oh never change Ag. You guys just brighten my day no end. I don’t know what I’d do without ya, ya little tyke.

Sucks that it’s going to end soon. Where else are people going to let us do this to each other all the time?

Outside of a German sadism club, that is…


R406901
1 day ago
SunTzu

Maybe you were gamers or skaters instead of readers- either way there’s something seriously wrong with your ability to comprehend simple concepts.

Maybe you are all just too in thrall to arseholes with letters after their names, to be able to think clearly

I dunno


R406905
1 day ago
SunTzu

Sucks that it’s going to end soon. Where else are people going to let us do this to each other all the time?

shame ain’t it.


R406906
1 day ago
SunTzu

And sometimes I really hope you’re a semi-functional 16 yr old that lives in a bubble. It would explain so much.

If he is, then he’s still a damn sight smarter than you are. Imagine that, Sucky, left behind by a semi-functional 16 yr old that lives in a bubble – how will you explain that to the folks back home?


R406907
1 day ago
SunTzu

Hey Floyd – Archive the whole 3 pages of this thread for me will ya, and post the link here.

Thanks – as a monument to the quasi-religious nature of the beliefs of the Clima-tards, and overall dumb sheep-like mentality of the herd, it is second to none.

Post Modified: 12/02/09 19:38:01

R406908
1 day ago
FloydAnderson

R406909
1 day ago
SunTzu

R406910
1 day ago
FloydAnderson

R406914
23 hours ago
SunTzu

thanks


R406915
20 hours ago
GWHunta

Great to witness the reemergence of Snark and receive some acknowledgment from Tango regarding my theory explaining AGW.

Solar cycles are fairly well understood. Those familiar with the term “Hale winter” will understand that at this point in the solar cycle we can reasonably expect to experience a cooling trend that will come to pass when solar activity again increases, which is as much a certainty as is gravity.

Natural variations of our climate neither prove nor disprove the existence of AGW, which again is also a certainty.

Human activities do release heat that slightly warms the biosphere. Electrical power generation, transmission and end use. The bulk of this additional energy produced is released to the lower troposphere as water vapor.

The overall impact of our activities in this regard depends upon having a comprehensive understanding of the sensitivity of the climate to alteration due to anthropogenic activity which the scientific community has yet to ascertain.

The politicization of the CO2 centric theory of AGW is in fact very much related to Peak Oil and is fundamentally about gaining widespread support for the adoption of an unjust energy policy (tax) wrapped in a shroud of radical environmentalism.

Watch the Penn & Teller episode of Bullshit titled “Being Green.”

Season 6, Episode 6, released July 24, 2008

Attacks the concept of carbon credits as a method of profiting off guilt, and compares them to indulgences.

Bottom line, nothing else mankind does impacts the climate of this planet as do anthropogenic agricultural activities in general, damming and agricultural irrigation specifically.

Peace,


R406916
20 hours ago
GWHunta

BTW Floyd, feel free to archive as much of my contributions here on this and various other related issues.

Piece?


R406921
19 hours ago
remarcus

fuck you sun, you fuckin retard. you might as well argue that mustard is not necessarily yellow.

i mean, you want to discuss decartesian solipsism when everyone else but floyd can but carry on half-baked representations of paranoid freudianism. including tango and sysiphus.

its pointless, chicken-fucker

sun, nobody sees it your way. bitch, get over yourself

on edit: i say that in all desire of you proving species extinction and desertification and glacier melt wrong

Post Modified: 12/03/09 02:58:15

R406922
19 hours ago
sisyphus

wat, me?

shit, remarcus


R406923
19 hours ago
sisyphus

i didnt read the other shit, btw.


R406924
18 hours ago
sisyphus

dear suntsu,

how about my good friend, a hobo, lets you touch his aids-diseased cock? would that be enough?


R406925
18 hours ago
remarcus

sun is but the symptom, grasshopper

Post Modified: 12/03/09 03:09:06

R406927
18 hours ago
sisyphus

of course, but he still sucks hobo-cock


R406928
18 hours ago
remarcus

i’m only gunna splain this once… its not going to be in this thread, you fucking idiots

start over


R406929
18 hours ago
SunTzu

and . . . .the idiots are back . . .and as usual they idiotically start babbling incoherently about their fave hobos, and their fave hobo-cocks, one of em even wants to babble about ‘desertification’ (he means and ‘the human effect on the water table’ AND ‘changing rainfall patterns’, an ever present ever changing variable in the Chaotic , climate system we have here on planet earth, but ‘desertification’ sounds sooo much more dramatic’)

sun, nobody sees it your way. bitch, get over yourself

Oh I’m quiet ok with that.

No one saw it my way on a lot of things over the past 6 yrs, but I’ve eventually been proved right on almost all of them.

Remarcus – are you really sure that

‘we all agree with each other in this here climatard circle-jerk’

is an argument you want to be making?

That just provides evidence in favour of my comment that this thread is

‘ a monument to the quasi-religious nature of the beliefs of the Clima-tards, and overall dumb sheep-like mentality of the herd’

you guys actually boasting about being proud of your sheep-like mentality is pretty funny really

i mean, you want to discuss decartesian solipsism when everyone else but floyd can but carry on half-baked representations of paranoid freudianism. including tango and sysiphus.

hahahahahaha – lol, wut? – Rem probably spent ages constructing that sentence and it still sounds like nonsense. I mean I know what you wanna say – but you picked a pretty convoluted and frankly stupid way to say it.

its pointless, chicken-fucker

I’m not sure if you ‘get’ the name calling thing – I mean when I call you chicken-fucker, you turning around and calling me chicken fucker right back just sounds like a remarcus variation of ‘I know you are, but what am I?’ – just makes ya look like some pathetic whining brat to be honest – dude you’re supposed to come up with your own insults, ya poor dumb bastard! Seriously, you can do better than that surely?

Post Modified: 12/03/09 04:00:31

R406930
18 hours ago
SunTzu

sun, nobody sees it your way. bitch, get over yourself

You really never did read The Emperors New Clothes, Or Alice in Wonderland when you were a kid, did ya Rem?


R406932
18 hours ago
sisyphus

you like hobocock, tho


R406933
18 hours ago
sisyphus

cockbiter


R406934
18 hours ago
SunTzu

hahahahahaha


R406935
17 hours ago
SunTzu

Oh go rim tubgirl, or something


R406938
17 hours ago
GWHunta

Which has the greater energy/heat content?

At identical barometric pressures:

A. One cubic kilometer of normal atmosphere at 20 degrees Celsius at 30 percent relative humidity.

B. One cubic kilometer of normal atmosphere at 5 degrees Celsius at 100% humidity/saturation point.

If you can’t easily discern the relevance of this question to the whole “its warming/ no its cooling” debate regarding “global warming” aka climate change, you don’t have an opinion on the matter, simply a belief.

The very fact that the term “global warming” has now been dropped and replaced with “climate change” should tell you that the CO2 hypothesis for explaining the imbalance in the Earth’s energy exchange is fundamentally flawed as the added atmospheric CO2 could only influence temperature, energy content measured as sensible heat, whereas increased water vapor by virtue of the latent heat of vaporization, can influence both temperature and the total energy content of the atmosphere.

(see Cultivating a Defense Against Global Warming )

Atmospheric and surface temperatures are a poor measure of energy content of a planet whose surface is predominately water and/or ice and whose atmosphere is warmed primarily by water vapor and solar isolation impacted dramatically by the existence of ever changing formations of cloud cover.

BTW, the latent heat of vaporization is roughly seven times the heat of fusion.

In other words, a cubic meter of water as vapor contained in fog bank at 5 degrees Celsius has more than sufficient thermal heat energy to melt a 7 cubic meters of ice upon condensation.

Peace,

Post Modified: 12/03/09 04:45:39

R406939
17 hours ago
GWHunta


R406941
12 hours ago
aganunitsi

given what the Harry_Read_Me file says, that statement is hilarious, and I’m pretty sure you have no idea what the fuck I’m referring to at all, hahahahahahaha

There was no reference, just a statement of pure bullshit that read…

Since, despite all the inelegant sophistry the FACT remains that there has been an increase in CO2 while at the same time a decrease in Temperature has been observed. Therefore the CO2 hypothesis is proved false through simple empirical observations.

As Floyd says…

The whole point is whether CO2 is a significant factor in driving global temperature….....

Although hell if I know what the cutoff for “significant” is. If the earth is 1.0 degree Celsius warmer than it would have been with pre-industrial ratios of atmospheric CO2, is that significant? What about 0.5 degrees?


R406943
10 hours ago
FloydAnderson

Although hell if I know what the cutoff for “significant” is. If the earth is 1.0 degree Celsius warmer than it would have been with pre-industrial ratios of atmospheric CO2, is that significant? What about 0.5 degrees?

Please give me your evidence of the impact CO2 has on driving global temperature.


R406944
10 hours ago
FloydAnderson

BTW Floyd, feel free to archive as much of my contributions here on this and various other related issues.

If you want me to archive threads, let me know which ones.


R406945
10 hours ago
FloydAnderson

Senator Barbara Boxer’s New Name for Climategate

Damian Thompson
Telegraph
December 3rd, 2009

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) thinks those responsible for Climategate should face criminal charges. “Wow, that’s a bit harsh,” I thought when I read it.

On closer inspection, however, Boxer was calling for prosecution of the hackers, not the resourceful prof and his pals. As she told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday: “You call it Climategate; I call it E-mail-theft-gate.”

E-mail-theft-gate. Sorry, Babs, but I don’t think it will catch on. Except, perhaps, at the BBC.

Post Modified: 12/03/09 11:28:44

R406946
10 hours ago
FloydAnderson

Climate Change Ringleader Phil Jones to Step Down

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
December 1, 2009

CRU’s Phil Jones will step down from his position as director of the unit that cooked climate change data to hide global cooling. Britain’s East Anglia University says Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review.

The CRU scandal emerged after anonymous persons gained access to 160 MB of emails and source code. It is uncertain if the evidence implicating Jones and the CRU came from hackers or whistle-blowers.

Lord Monckton, the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and adviser to Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit in the 1980s, went on the Alex Jones Show last week and called from criminal prosecution of Jones and his crew of climate change fraudsters.

In a blog entry posted prior to talking with Alex Jones, Monckton noted how Phil Jones and his co-conspirators “have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings.”

Phil Jones and the CRU have stonewalled FOIA requests demanding access to the data. It is alleged he destroyed evidence in an effort to cover-up the fraud.

On Sunday, the Times Online reported that scientists at the University of East Anglia admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. The CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

On Saturday, the University of East Anglia said that 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been made available to the public for “several years” and that all data will be released as soon as they are clear of non-publication agreements.

Phil Jones told the science journal Nature that he was working to make the data publicly available with the agreement of its owners but this was expected to take some months.

He has called the charges that the emails and source code involve any “untoward” activity “ludicrous.”

Monckton and others dispute the usefulness of this data. “As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up.”

Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma has called for an investigation of the CRU and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). According to Inhofe, the IPCC “cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.”

Alex Jones and Monckton addressed the climate change fraud and talked about how it will be used to create a global carbon taxing scheme and world government.

Post Modified: 12/03/09 12:03:19

R406947
9 hours ago
SunTzu

Ag: The whole point is whether CO2 is a significant factor in driving global temperature….....

NO, the whole point is whether or not CO2 drives temperature at all!

Both you and jerk-buddy Tango have already admitted (FINALLY) that the Sun is the major driving force for changes in temp, but for some reason you feel the need to keep bleating on about the horrors of CO2.

So far there is no evidence to support the hypothesis the CO2 drives temp in any significant way. You yourself admit you can’t even provide a useful definition of the term ‘significant’ when used in thiss context.

And though you don’t appear to accept it, there is also no evidence to support the hypothesis the CO2 drives temp AT ALL!

The mass-hysteria surrounding temperature change, which we have have had to suffer in recent times, has totally ignored any and all evidence for other potential and far more likely causes of the observed changes in temperature. All the Climatards have repeatedly ignored evidence that other planets in the solar system have experienced temperature rises. The most any of you climatards will admit to is that there sun goes through periods of increased and decreased activity which does indeed affect temperatures. Then, however, you start ranting manaically about how CO2 is still gonna kill us all(ONEoneOne)

You guys are morons. I really don’t care how much education you have had or how many letters you have after your name or how many times you’ve managed to con other idiots into publishing your bullshit. You still couldn’t tell yer arse from your elbow if your lives depended on it.

There was no reference, just a statement of pure bullshit that read…

hahahah – oh dear – I’m arguing with some idiot who obviously hasn’t even read the material we are discussing. Have you read any of the liberated info from the CRU Ag, or are you just doing your usual ‘trick’ of spouting bullshit without ever having read anything?

I even gave you the file name. You probably looked at it and thought ‘My head hurts . . .’

You’re such a wonderful source of teh lulz, Ag, even more so than Rem or Sissy because you can at least construct a sentence, albeit one full of crap, even one that doesn’t revolve around hobo genitalia.

I end up feeling guilty for laughing at those other two because, well, you’re not really supposed to get pleasure from denigrating the totally mentally impaired. You on the other hand are not totally mentally impaired . . .

Post Modified: 12/03/09 12:37:47

R406948
9 hours ago
aganunitsi

Please give me your evidence of the impact CO2 has on driving global temperature.

“Driving” – I have none. Influence global temperature… CO2 absorbs energy in the infrared wavelength, so it would be physically impossible to add CO2 to the atmosphere without increasing the energy captured from this wavelength. You would have to invent stealth CO2.

As far as what happens to that additional energy captured, that’s part of the debate. It is highly unlikely that 100% of it would be recognized as an increase of thermal energy within our biosphere.


R406949
9 hours ago
Truthcansuk

Sunny-T – hahahah – oh dear – I’m arguing with some idiot who hasn’t even read the material we are discussing. Have you read any of the liberated info from the CRU Ag, or are you just doing your usual ‘trick’ of spouting bullshit without ever having read anything?

Oh, Irony… you so silly.


R406950
9 hours ago
SunTzu

you climatards are very good at pseudo-scientific bullshit. Much better than the Ickesters when it comes to spinning a bullshit hypothesis


R406951
9 hours ago
FloydAnderson

“Driving” – I have none.

OK, now we’re getting somewhere. So do you think CO2 emissions should be reduced and taxed through an international UN treaty?


R406953
9 hours ago
FloydAnderson

Much better than the Ickesters when it comes to spinning a bullshit hypothesis

the alien thing really bothers you doesn’t it?


R406954
8 hours ago
SunTzu

Sucky – you’re an idiot without even the ability to understand basic simple English.

What is really ironic is that some for reason you seem to have convinced yourself that you’ve discovered some sort of evidence that I haven’t read the liberated info which the CRU tried to prevent release of, when it’s pretty obvious by now that neither you nor your fellow chicken-fuckers have bothered to read the material which you have spent a lot of time attempting to downplay the significance of

It must really suck being you.

Post Modified: 12/03/09 13:08:45

R406955
8 hours ago
SunTzu

the alien thing really bothers you doesn’t it?

Icke’s a ‘well poisoner.’

It wouldn’t bother me if he ever attempted to provide something which could be called ‘evidence’. He doesn’t and he never will.

What bothers me about Icke is that he gives the Chicken-fuckers reason to ignore the rest of the very accurate and very well documented non-alien-reptile info he pushes.

Chicken-fuckers are dumb enough as it is, and it doesn’t help that Icke actually gives them reason to ignore good info.


R406956
8 hours ago
SunTzu

http://www.gnn.tv/threads/37605/Climategate
archive pls Floyd – Jonbray does a good job of making the climtards look pretty stupid – not that that is very hard to do, but still . . ..


R406960
8 hours ago
SunTzu

hey AG: it’s pretty obvious that, as well as not reading the CRU info, you never read The Emperors New Clothes, Or Alice in Wonderland either, when you were a kid.

The Video Gaming industry has a LOT to answer for


R406963
8 hours ago
Trainspotter

All this namecalling and demanding of evidence…. The former seems to entertain y’all so I won’t question it. As for the latter… Let me ask..

Where is the evidence that CO2 is not a signficant greenhouse gas? Who has turned over almost a century of science on the issue to determine that CO2 does not reflect heat back into the atmosphere and thus act as a blanket, to use the simplest of analogies?

The greenhouse effect and the science behind it are not new. They are universally acknowledged, so there’s no capacity for any type of conspiratorial argument on this one.

So going one step further, if CO2 acts as a blanket and the thickness of the blanket is increased then 1 + 1 = 2 and the NET ENERGY RETAINED increases. “Retained” that is; inputs and their variability obviously impacting the net overall effect but not substituting for the contribution due to carbon.

GWHunta’s hypothesis is that our hydrological impacts outweigh our carbon impacts, and this is an interesting possibility to explore. He never denies that carbon does have an impact. And no scientist denies that the sun has an impact either. It’s a complicated set of events with lots of variable involved and of course we don’t fully understand it. Our lack of complete understanding doesn’t mean we don’t understand the fact that CO2 plays a role in THE NET ENERGY RETENTION CAPACITY OF THE ATMOSPHERE.

I’m willing to entertain radical accusatory theories regarding elite intentions and misrepresentations etc… but it seems to me from the language being used that you guys (Floyd, Sun, more recently Hack..) are denying any role of CO2 whatsoever in the overall science. Am I wrong? Do you acknowlege CO2’s role as an insulator of sorts or are you really question the decades old conclusions regarding The Greenhouse Effect?

There’s so much room in the middle to explore but the language polarises the debate which I don’t think is necessary. Oh wait, I said I wouldn’t go there… sorry, pardon me. Resume hurling excrement as deemed required.

Oh and Sun, if this gets a laugh out of you then you do have an interesting sense of humour and yes, I’ll be happy to accept payment.


R406968
8 hours ago
Truthcansuk

What is really ironic is that some for reason you seem to have convinced yourself that you’ve discovered some sort of evidence that I haven’t read the liberated info which the CRU tried to prevent release of…

Is that what you think that was? Because if so then you are incorrect.

Sunny-T – so sucky – If one hasn’t read each and every one of the emails contained in the 60Mb of data does that in someway negate everything they say on the subject? if not, then I’m curious as to why you consider the Q of the utmost importance If so, then, according to your so-called ‘logic’, unless you yourself have read each and every one of those emails your opinion on the subject is not worth shit, quite frankly.

Sunny-T hahahah – oh dear – I’m arguing with some idiot who hasn’t even read the material we are discussing. Have you read any of the liberated info from the CRU Ag, or are you just doing your usual ‘trick’ of spouting bullshit without ever having read anything?

See what happened there? Isn’t that awesome?

You are so awesome.


R406969
8 hours ago
SunTzu

Where is the evidence that CO2 is not a signficant greenhouse gas?

hahahahahahha – I see you’re putting yourself forward for the title of ‘Dumbest GNNer of all time’

Good luck – but I feel I should warn you that your fellow chicken-fuckers are putting on a pretty good show in that department, as well.


R406970
8 hours ago
SunTzu

See what happened there? Isn’t that awesome?

hahahaha – your inability to comprehend the significance of me mentioning ‘each and every email’ is very amusing

Ag apppears not to have read any of it, while you tried to imply that if one had not read all of it one had no right to reply. Both Ag’s refusal to read any of it, and your attempt at ‘Warmer-gate’ debunking are equally idiotic

It really must suck being you


R406972
8 hours ago
Truthcansuk

Sunny-T – hahahaha – your inability to comprehend the significance of me…

Heh… So awesome…


R406973
8 hours ago
SunTzu

yeah, whatevs


R406975
8 hours ago
Trainspotter

C’mon Sun, surely you can do better than that. I always figured you were intelligent, though I had to read carefully between the shit.

I’m looking to separate the issue here. Nevermind climate change or whatever you want to call it, I’m talking about the reason it is liveable outside and my leather jacket is all I need at the moment to indulge my idiotic habit for nicotine.

I’m not talking about climate change or what drives it. I’m talking about the much older science of The Greenhouse Effect. Do you dismiss that? (as you’ve dismissed me) I’m trying to figure where exactly you are coming from and it is hard with all the shit flying….

Are you questioning CO2’s role as a greenhouse gas or are you not?


R406976
8 hours ago
aganunitsi

OK, now we’re getting somewhere. So do you think CO2 emissions should be reduced and taxed through an international UN treaty?

No. Starting at the UN level and working down is completely bass akwards. If citizens believe CO2 emissions should be taxed, they can start that tax locally, from city governments up to the state level. They can use the funds to develop renewable/clean energy within their community. After years of this, they can demonstrate the consequences to others – if good, it spreads.

Personally, I’m more a fan of subsidies through tax exemptions. We already have plenty of taxes. If someone develops/sells renewable or “clean” energy, they should get a tax brake. This provides incentive without increasing taxes. California (bankrupt!) already has this program in place for solar panel installations.

NO, the whole point is whether or not CO2 drives temperature at all!

If you and Jonbray believe you could remove 99.99% of all CO2 from the atmosphere and not influence the temperature, you are complete idiots. CO2 allows high energy wavelengths (visible light) to pass through, but it captures, holds and releases energy in the infrared wavelength – how hard is that to understand?

You don’t understand how covering your body with a blanket will warm you up? Your internal chemistry is the primary driver of the surface temperature of your skin, but a thin blanket covering your skin can significantly increase the surface temperature. It ain’t rocket science.


R406977
8 hours ago
Trainspotter

If citizens believe CO2 emissions should be taxed, they can start that tax locally, from city governments up to the state level. They can use the funds to develop renewable/clean energy within their community. After years of this, they can demonstrate the consequences to others – if good, it spreads.

Amen to that…

You don’t understand how covering your body with a blanket will warm you up? Your internal chemistry is the primary driver of the surface temperature of your skin, but a thin blanket covering your skin can significantly increase the surface temperature. It ain’t rocket science.

Yeah, what he said….

C’mon Sun, where do you stand on this basic issue? Gimme something to go on here so I can at least TRY to contextualise what you argue between spews….


R406981
6 hours ago
FloydAnderson

Where is the evidence that CO2 is not a signficant greenhouse gas? Who has turned over almost a century of science on the issue to determine that CO2 does not reflect heat back into the atmosphere and thus act as a blanket, to use the simplest of analogies?

If CO2 is such a significant blanket and reflector of heat then why is the global temperature going down as the CO2 levels continue to increase? It just doesn’t make sense to me and doesn’t explain why reducing CO2 emissions is so god damn important.


R406982
5 hours ago
xenonix

It just doesn’t make sense to me

no shit


R406983
5 hours ago
FloydAnderson

Icke’s a ‘well poisoner.’

I don’t think he is. I can see why people think that but I really feel like Icke is on to something that is much larger than many people can comprehend at the moment.

Post Modified: 12/03/09 17:10:31

R406986
2 hours ago
Trainspotter

If CO2 is such a significant blanket and reflector of heat then why is the global temperature going down as the CO2 levels continue to increase?

Because it is a process that we recognise as highly compicated by numerous influences. The blanket analogy is only meant to describe one process, one variable in a really long equation if you will. Just because we don’t understand the complete equation doesn’t mean we can’t reasonably assess certain variables that we have developed a good understanding about. The Greenhouse Effect is a collection of a portion of that equation that we do have good science to point towards.

If your car’s water pump loses some efficiency for some reason, you expect the temperature of the engine core to increase, and barring the impact of other forces it surely will. At some point the fan kicks in. This will compensate to some extent. If nothing else changes we can expect an equilibrium to set in – you’re idling in the drive through waiting far too long for the burger that is clogging your arteries again….

So you and your buddy are arguing about what may have caused your engine temp to rise, and then later fall halfway back, and suddenly remain steady. Your buddy is convinced you have a water pump issue; you’re not so sure. You’re both going back and forth over various scenarios when, unnoticed by you and your pal, the windspeed outside your car increases. Neither of you are paying attention to anything but the guages and the cute chick at the drive through window so this coefficient of the radiator variable of the equation escapes you. The wind increases the efficiency of the radiator and the temperature goes down again. Let’s say, for the short period of time while you are arguing about it and before the cute chick finally brings the grub the temp settles into a new slightly lower steady state (because the increased wind outside is steady).

How could there possibly be something wrong with the water pump you argue – if there was an issue with the water pump then surely the temperature must continue to rise! But it is falling!

You drive off and of course the temp climbs again, which you both expect so it doesn’t help to solve the debate.

That wind outside was easy to miss.

The cycles of the earth operate on much longer wavelengths. So many cycles, so many variables, so much opportunity to stab blindly looking for explanations. Like I asked once before; who are you gonna trust? IPCC? I can see not trusting them. But the majority of the worlds scientists? Some conspiracies are. Some are not. Hard to figure – so much work goes into muddying the water…. so much abuse, both planned and undertaken opportunistically.

One side can only ever have part of the truth. If you meet someone who has all the answers, back away from that person. If you meet that person in the mirror, look a little closer.

It just doesn’t make sense to me and doesn’t explain why reducing CO2 emissions is so god damn important.

I’m sure there’s a shitload of stuff that doesn’t make sense to you. Sure is a shitload of stuff that makes no sense to me. Welcome to the human experience.

Remember that sceptisism is a perspective, not a badge, or a brand.

I’ll check the Icke vids, he’s got some interesting shit.

Post Modified: 12/03/09 19:03:44

R406989
2 hours ago
aganunitsi

If CO2 is such a significant blanket and reflector of heat then why is the global temperature going down as the CO2 levels continue to increase? It just doesn’t make sense to me and doesn’t explain why reducing CO2 emissions is so god damn important.

Good question, and one that could have been answered if money had been invested into climate science outside of CO2. That there is a correlation between sunspot cycles and climate trends is undeniable. But the mechanism behind that correlation is still poorly explained. Inquisitive eyes have been paid to look elsewhere, so accurate prediction of natural climate variation remains elusive.

This Popular Mechanics article from 7 years ago states, in the last paragraph, that it is known that warming will pause until about 2010, due to the solar cycles. I’m not sure how Popular Mechanics figured that out before the IPCC, but even the IPCC admitted that warming would pause until the current solar lull is over, around 2009. What they didn’t count on (because government funds weren’t being paid to investigate it) is a Dalton/Maunder style minimum.

I wish these guys were getting some funding. Right now their site is a ghost town – my comment from last month is still one of the ten “recent comments” on the front page! They carry on the work that has already accurately predicted the current deep minimum, as well as the majority of El Niños/La Niñas over the past two decades. On future climate change, they predict cooling for much of the next 100 years, but a warming period to rival the Medieval Warm Period begins around 2300.


R406991
2 hours ago
SunTzu

That CO2 plays some role as a GHG is not what I am disputing.

I am disputing that the so-called ‘science’ has been able to usefully determine the extent to which it does so or, more usefully, the amount by which it does so.

Without such things it is impossible for anyone to claim that they are convinced that it is so significant that we should institute what amounts to a regime of legal punishment for any entity unwilling to fall into lockstep with the army of ‘CO2=Death’ fanatics

The Chicken-fuckers were quite happy to allow the AGW-hysterics to go around falsely claiming that CO2 was the main the cause of the warming observed over the last few decades.

The Chicken-fuckers were also responsible for leading the attack on anyone that dared to dispute that falsity.

Now that cooling has been observed and recorded and is therefore indisputable, the Chicken-fuckers have changed their argument from ‘CO2=warming’ to admitting that the Sun is indeed the main driver of warming (something which should have been obvious to anyone capable of independent thought and logical reasoning) but they insist on sticking to the argument that ‘CO2 ADDS to the overall temperature to such an extent that it will in the end cause the death of all life on the planet’ (or variations of that statement) while in no way providing any useful info to the extent to which this ‘extra CO2 warming’ will effect the overall temperature. Nor any proof that it will effect it in such a manner as to threaten life on this planet.

Instead they spend their time making ridiculous statements, which they laughingly call ‘predictions’, such as : “The oceans will rise by up to 20 meters in the next 20 years” or “the polar bears will all be dead by 2020”

Their behaviour over the last few years has been that of a bunch of petty vindictive assholes – with fascist overtones.

They are a bunch of very dangerous individuals, blinded by a religious belief in the absolute correctness of what are, at the end of the day, mere hysterical alarmist ‘guesses’

Guess Pronunciation (gs)
v. guessed, guess·ing, guess·es – v.tr.
a. To predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information.
b. To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information.

and seem determined to use any and all methods no matter how underhand to greatly affect public policy.

The fact that they keep altering their theory, when the observed factual data repeatedly shows that their methods of data-collection, models and methods of prediction are seriously flawed, while at the same time claiming that it is almost a ‘crime against nature’ to disagree with them, marks them as extremist fanatics driven by a belief in their own absolute superiority.


R406992
2 hours ago
SunTzu

On future climate change, they predict cooling for much of the next 100 years, but a warming period to rival the Medieval Warm Period begins around 2300.

Such predictions are impossible to make with any level of useful accuracy.


R406993
2 hours ago
SunTzu

Anyone making such predictions is nothing more than a modern-day snake-oil salesman, and probably willing to say anything in order to secure some funding for some ‘research’, any research

All they are doing is taking the pattern of the past and mapping it on to the future. Any idiot could do that with exactly the same level of accuracy or inaccuracy as these so called ‘scientists’


R406994
1 hour ago
FloydAnderson

http://en.cop15.dk/

OK, the big issue I see is that the UN Copenhagen Climate Change Summit is almost here. This is a huge attempt towards world government.

Post Modified: 12/03/09 20:41:26

R406995
1 hour ago
FloydAnderson

here’s a few words from disgusting pig cunt Gordon Brown:

Post Modified: 12/03/09 20:18:45

R406996
1 hour ago
Trainspotter

Sun,

The way you express yourself about all the “so called” science and scientists would suggest that you are coming from a seriously biased end of the spectrum yourself. Science is never perfect, but it does evolve. The fundamental mechanisms of the scientific method are responsible for the “virtual miracle” that is this interwebby thingie over which we rant at eachother. Your tone implies no respect for science whatsoever.

You are misrepresenting some of the “hysterics”. I don’t know where you get most of your media but it sounds like you’re parroting whacko pundits or press releases written by journalists du jour.

I’ve never heard a scientist “predict” 20m sea rise or polar bear extinction. Many have calculated the size of various ice packs and alerted us to potential rises based on the possibility of losing those above sea level packs. And those hysterical grant lovers who call themselves zoo-ologists know that without ice the current lifestyle of polar bears will be impossible to maintain. The entire whacko ecologist crowd quite accurately points to examples of species that adapt in certain ways to serious environmental shift, and also to others that do not, and yes, sometimes contrary to their own expectations. I’m in the polar bears corner and hopeful that they can adapt, but I never heard an actual scientist say that the extinction WOULD happen, only that they felt a great risk of extinction was playing itself out.

I don’t know where you are hearing “petty vindictive assholes”, but I don’t spend as much time on the web as you might. I get most of my input via radio, podcast and such. There are lots of very reasonable people out there doing their best with the facts as they understand them. You are not being somewhat petty and vindictive Sun? C’mon man, have a beer….. sheesh.

I’m very curious about the sun cycle aspect of this grand equation. I would be interested to hear more. But those pointing to one set of coefficients on one end of the equation and by that implying that other portions of the equation are not making expected contributions to the overall picture as claimed just isn’t making a reasonable case.


R406997
1 hour ago
floopin

The filth at the BBC (jews, blacks and genetic homosexuals) have gone into overdrive to reinstate the global warming myth:

Timbuktu’s ancient salt caravans under threat

Plus every news bulletin has shite about Everest melting or it being a bit windy, because of global warming.

Notes:

Genetic homosexuals look like this evil bastard:

sort of down syndromy.

Plus, the left-Nazi cunts at the BBC even have an entire website dedicated to furthering the myth.

And here’s a woman who smokes too much and is melting Greenland.

Oh – found some more pics:

!!

Here name is Maggy Delvaux-Mufu and she set herself on fire as bit of a publicity stunt. It went wrong and she burned to death while passers by held out mash mellows on sticks.

Post Modified: 12/03/09 20:36:01

R406998
1 hour ago
FloydAnderson

here’s a bunch of jibberish from David “humans are maggots” Suzuki:


R406999
58 minutes ago
Trainspotter

Oh Floop you are nothing if not a train wreck.

Sun – Further… again I’ve never heard such expressed hysterically but the possibility for a sudden worldwide rise in sea levels is also based on a real potential. No point in getting hysterical about it, but again – who are you listening to?

The behaviour of glaciers is reasonably well understood such that when one observes fissures and cracks of increasing frequency and depth and increasing volumes of meltwater flowing for longer periods of time per season down to greater depths of the glacier where it will decrease the friction between the base of the glacier and the landmass that ice otherwise has a pretty good grip on and points out that it is possible for a reasonably large chunk to suddenly free itself and slide into the sea….. Cleaving glaciers not a new idea. Large scale. Yeah, that’s definitely whack job hysteria. What are we calling them? Chicken fucker climatards? uh huh….

Time for a frosty malt beverage me thinks….......

Peace.


R407000
51 minutes ago
Trainspotter

Floyd you really do debase yourself. Anyone that knows anything about D. Suzuki knows that he stands as a believer in the science of CO2 related AGW. You post a clip where he speaks in plain language on behalf of a cause and that is supposed to back up your use of insulting language? Really Floyd… If I post a vid of Alex Jones and call him a name that is going to contribute to my argument?

What fucking grade did you flunk out of? Or did you play football?

Read what you often write – look at it closely. Now look up “jibberish” in the dictionary.


R407001
48 minutes ago
FloydAnderson

so you’re a David Suzuki apologist?


R407002
32 minutes ago
Ruff_Shot

Good old radiational cooling

Post Modified: 12/03/09 21:06:56

R407003
27 minutes ago
FloydAnderson

this global warming is heating up the planet so much that it might snow here in central Texas tonight. Now that’s what I call hot! Snow in Texas!!


R407004
23 minutes ago
FloydAnderson

seriously, the forecasts here are calling for a chance of snow. I hope we have one of those ice days tomorrow where a bunch of shit closes down. I’ll hit the town and get wasted.


R407005
10 minutes ago
Ruff_Shot

R407006
1 minute ago
SunTzu

The way you express yourself about all the “so called” science and scientists would suggest that you are coming from a seriously biased end of the spectrum yourself.

Any biases I may now have on the subject are a direct result of the behaviour and statement of the Eco-science fraternity over the past decade. Originally I accepted their theories but when I noticed that their behaviour was that of a bunch of petty vindictive arseholes, I began to examine more closely the claims they were making. When I did so I found that there was in fact little evidence put forward to support the vast majority of their so-0called conclusions.

You are misrepresenting some of the “hysterics”.

No I am not – they did exactly what I said they did and they did here on GNN – and YOU already know they did because you were there when they did it.

I don’t know where you get most of your media but it sounds like you’re parroting whacko pundits or press releases written by journalists du jour.

You are either joking or else seriously retarded.

I am paraphrasing the GNN chicken-fucking Climatard contingent, as you well know since you made comments in many of the threads where the chicken-fuckers used all of the tactics I listed and made almost identical statements to the ones I listed. You were there – so don’t pretend you didn’t notice it – and furthermore you made no attempt to play the ‘Mr Reasonable’ persona you have now adopted when your chicken fucking climatard fellow-travelers were engaging in such tactics. So kind fuck off with the Faux-reasonable persona you have temporarily adopted. You ain’t fooling no one.

I don’t know where you are hearing “petty vindictive assholes”, but I don’t spend as much time on the web as you might. I get most of my input via radio, podcast and such. There are lots of very reasonable people out there doing their best with the facts as they understand them. You are not being somewhat petty and vindictive Sun? C’mon man, have a beer….. sheesh.

Right here at GNN you turd brain – but you already know that because you were right here reading the same threads. You said nothing then about the behaviour of these people so don’t give me the ‘hi! I’m trainspoter the ultra-reasonable’ because it doesn’t wash.

I’m very curious about the sun cycle aspect of this grand equation. I would be interested to hear more

And you have had ample opportunity before now in the many many threads in which it has already been referred to, to indulge in further discussion of the subject, yet for some reason known only to you, you have until now refused to acknowledge the validity of any of it, so once again I have to say that your ‘Mr reasonable’ persona is looking a little contrived.

But those pointing to one set of coefficients on one end of the equation and by that implying that other portions of the equation are not making expected contributions to the overall picture as claimed just isn’t making a reasonable case.

oh just shut the fuck up. Your new found dedication to ‘reasonableness’ is not at all convincing


R407007
14 hours ago
Truthcansuk

Floyd – this global warming is heating up the planet so much that it might snow here in central Texas tonight. Now that’s what I call hot! Snow in Texas!!

So the forecast is that hell has frozen over…


R407008
14 hours ago
Truthcansuk

Sunny – Your new found dedication to ‘reasonableness’ is not at all convincing.

We broke reasonable on the 9-11 theory threads. Anthony never bothered having it repaired…


R407009
14 hours ago
SunTzu

Which is prolly why Train’s attempts to pretend otherwise just end up being utterly pathetic

So the forecast is that hell has frozen over…

no – only that it might snow in hell. If it were one of the resident Chicken-fuckers such as remarcus or Livingston making the forecast they probably would have said that hell has frozen over, but Floyd’s not one of the resident chicken fucking climatards so he didn’t say that, and merely reported what was reasonable given the info he had.


R407011
13 hours ago
Truthcansuk

I think we can dispense with reasonable at this point. The site is closed to innocent bystanders now. It’s just us crazies running the sanitarium…


R407012
13 hours ago
FloydAnderson

hey Trollscanbewhores, I’ve noticed that you continually play the GNN bloggers are stupid/crazy card and yet you really offer no good information about anything.

have you sold your soul to teh CIA or something?


R407013
13 hours ago
SunTzu

From waaaaaaaaaay back at the end of page 2:

Tango:Although I agree 100% with you about the flawed nature of peer-reviewed studies. I mean, I have a dozen or so publications, and I can barely read or write at a fourth grade level ;)

Ian Rutherford Plimer – an Australian geologist, academic and businessman. He is a critic of creationism and of the scientific consensus that global warming is driven by anthropogenic CO2 . He has published approximately 60 academic papers and six books, including his book on the global warming debate, Heaven and Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science. He is a director of three mining companies.

Carbon dioxide has an effect on the atmosphere and it has an effect for the first 50 parts per million and once it’s done its job then it’s finished and you can double it and quadruple it and it has no effect because we’ve seen that in the geological past, and we’ve seen it in times gone by when the carbon dioxide content was 100 times the current content. We didn’t have runaway global warming, we actually had glaciation, so there’s immediately a disconnect. So carbon dioxide is absolutely vital for living on earth; it’s plant food, all of life lives off carbon dioxide. To demonise it shows that you don’t understand school child science.
Ian Plimer, interviewed on ABNNewswire, June 2009


R407014
13 hours ago
SunTzu

yet you really offer no good information about anything.

ever.


R407015
12 hours ago
Trainspotter

Sun,

You may be bang on comparing my statements against past GNN threads. I was not thinking in terms of GNN threads at all and I never for a second while I wrote my responses to you thought in terms of said threads. I think that each time I questioned the media that fed your broad stroke statements it was clear that I was not referring to GNN, but hey, sue me if I’m easily misinterpretted. You were referring to the world at large, or so it seemed – that is what I commented on.

You know what Sun? You’re the one who’s anger is putting your overall lifespan at risk here. I’ve tried to meet you halfway but you just can’t help but submit to whatever aspect of your fearful ego insists on propping yourself up by grade school machinations of name calling and persistent refusal to give others an honest read.

New found dedication to reasonableness??

Are you serious? I’ve been generally quiet around here for sure, relatively speaking. Aside from well deserved assaults on jholon and his (alleged by me) sock puppet bravenew; I wish you luck getting anyone whose left in this echo chamber to corroborate your implication that I have any history that can be described as “unreasonable”.


R407016
12 hours ago
Truthcansuk

Floyd – hey Trollscanbewhores, I’ve noticed that you continually play the GNN bloggers are stupid/crazy card and yet you really offer no good information about anything.

hey Floyd, I’ve noticed that you continually play the stupid/crazy card and yet you really offer no good information about anything.


R407017
12 hours ago
sisyphus

you guys are actually bothering to post on the third page of something? wow



R407018
12 hours ago
SunTzu

I think that each time I questioned the media that fed your broad stroke statements it was clear that I was not referring to GNN, but hey, sue me if I’m easily misinterpretted.

you presuming it was the media was your first stupid presumption.

Your presumption that you could pretend that you didn’t occasionally join-in or make posts supporting Chicken fuckers like Sissy and Livingston when they viciously attacked all that disagreed with them, is your second stupid presumption

I’ve tried to meet you halfway but you just can’t help but submit to whatever aspect of your fearful ego blah blah blah

Oh go suck my dick Trainy. You ain’t foolin no one.

name calling and persistent refusal to give others an honest read

like I said earlier – you stayed silent when people like GW were on the receiving end of it from your fellow-chicken fuckers like sissy, livingston and Remarcus, so your attempts to pretend that you now find it distasteful are just evidence of what a pathetic little lowlife you really are

Post Modified: 12/04/09 00:39:06

R407023
2 hours ago
FloydAnderson

hey Floyd, I’ve noticed that you continually play the stupid/crazy card and yet you really offer no good information about anything.

Not a very good comeback sukmaster. Sounds like you have sold your soul to teh CIA.


R407034
29 minutes ago
Trainspotter

Sun – I’m not here to fool anyone. I speak in pretty straight terms and I don’t jump to conclusions about others based on a narrow range of insight derived from a handful of thread postings. And whatever I might conclude I don’t feel the need to deride others with the type of language you sling around. I lost my temper and threw some shit at Floyd awhile back I admit. But you really need to grow up a bit. Get out of your basement or whatever lifestyle restriction has you so frustrated. Your ego never really gets anywhere throwing insults around or bullying people. If it makes you feel better I guess …. go to town. But don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.


___________________________

No comments:

Post a Comment

Archived GNN Threads