Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Clima-tards examine latest Hocky Stick Graph

Clima-tards examine latest Hocky Stick Graph

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:20:38 -0600
R406786
1 week ago
SunTzu

Apparently . . . .

If you recieve money from any corporation and spend your time examining and finding flaws in Climate ‘Reasearch’ ‘findings’ you’re an avaricious fucktard in thrall to the G_d mannon and mostly likely you’d sell you’re Grandmother to White Slavers for a quick buck

BUT

If you get caught falsifying data, rigging the so-called ‘peer-review’ process so as to only be reviewed by those that already support your ‘findings’, attempting to destroy the careers of those that disagree with you or even so much as question even one aspect of your ‘research’, destroying data and correspondence which is subject to a legally-binding FOI request, in order to secure access-to/contiuation-of £13 million in funding; you are merely a misunderstood, quoted-out-of-context hard-working climate ‘scientist’ and anyone that questions the whole Global Warming Climate Change Threat-to-the-Biosphere circus built upon your so-called ‘research’ is an ‘Alex jones reader” (Oh the SHAME!) !!111111!!!!!ONEoneONE

at least according to the chicken-fucking Climatard GNNers Shitshaper, TruthCanSuck, Tango and Snark (to name but 4)

Post Modified: 12/02/09 00:35:15

R406788
1 week ago
sisyphus

learn to spell, faggot


R406791
1 week ago
SunTzu

F.A.G.G.O.T

how’s that?


R406792
1 week ago
sisyphus

learn how commas work, idiot


R406799
1 week ago
keygen


R406800
1 week ago
keygen



R406806
1 week ago
sisyphus

that’s some serious butthurt

where are levi johnstone’s hockey stick pics?


R406818
1 week ago
SunTzu

wow, when sissy has to crank up a sockpuppet and pull out Goatse I guess something I said must have annoyed him. I didn’t even call Sissy a ‘chicken-fucking Climatard ‘ – - maybe one of the named chicken-fucking Climatards is in fact a sockpuppet for Sissy? Sounds implausible, but otherwise it’s had to see why he takes it so personally. It’s hardly my fault he’s a chicken-fucking Climatard


R406840
1 week ago
mtnlungta

one way or the other
my contention is
that the climate debate is about 10th on a list of critical problems
and has been flogged to death for diversion

that has worked rather well eh?


R406841
1 week ago
sisyphus

It isn’t my sockpuppet


R406842
1 week ago
SunTzu

yes dear.

Is that your gaping ass on display up there?


R406847
1 week ago
keygen



R406849
1 week ago
Dilated_Rebel

lolz.


R406865
1 week ago
SunTzu

oh noes – I’m being trolled by chicken-fuckers pissed off at being identified as fuckers of chickens AND behaving exactly as one would expexct chicken fuckers to behave!!!!!111!!!!!!!ONEoneONE

Oh the shame!

What’ll I tell the kids??!!

Post Modified: 12/02/09 14:17:52

R406890
1 week ago
AnotherBetterRed

If you get caught falsifying data, rigging the so-called ‘peer-review’ process ...

I guess it’s just a coincidence this breaks the exact time of the CPH thing.

We need a new economic system, not a few percentage points drop in CO2 or whatever. Even if they avoid drowning us they have no intention of stopping poisoning us with all the other shit flying around (thanks capital, for adding DU to the mix).


R406895
1 week ago
SunTzu

guess it’s just a coincidence this breaks the exact time of the CPH thing.

hahahaha

oh you climatard strawclutchers are the best show in town, by a loooooooong shot.

highly entertaining and original – the Jones/Ickesters got nothing on you folks – hahahahahahahahahaha


R406902
1 week ago
Truthcansuk

Sunny-T – highly entertaining and original – the Jones/Ickesters got nothing on you folks – hahahahahahahahahaha

Now now… in all fairness they’ve been at it longer. You can’t expect us to be at their level yet.


R406904
1 week ago
SunTzu

Dude you guys have been on a steep learning curve – but you have surpassed ALL expectations. You’re really much better at this than you give yourselves credit for – I’m amazed at the mental contortions you chicken-fuckers have pulled over the last week – you dudes can turn on a dime at the drop of a hat – Really – I’m tres impressed

For example Tango/Keygen was only just a short while ago using Cyclical variability of temperature ranges in an argument against skepticism of Global Warming Climate Change teh threat to the Biosphere(OneONEone) circus.

THAT showed true initiative and a real dedication to twisting phrases and meaning to serve just about ANY purpose you want them to. I was impressed

Now that’s worthy of a monetary bonus at the very least. The agency should at least put him down for an all-you-can-eat weekend in TJ, if nothing else

Post Modified: 12/02/09 19:28:23

R406912
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

R406913
1 week ago
SunTzu

one way or the other, my contention is, that the climate debate is about 10th on a list of critical problems, and has been flogged to death for diversion

this is funny

When I point out the obvious falsity of the GWOT, I get climatards whining at me:

“It’s not important – we’re killing the planet!!!111!!! The Fucking PLANET duuuuude!!! the GWOT is to distract you from the killing of the PLANET!!!”

AND

Then when I point out the very obvious falsity of the AGW-circus I get MT whining at me:

“It’s not important – It’s only 10th in the list of important shit! There are 10 other more important things!!11!!! The AGW-circus is to distract you from the 10 other more important things!!”

jeez – can’t fuckin win with you tards – if it ain’t one thing it’s another. I wish you guys would make up your minds and decide what the fuck you idiots consider to be important enough to get your attention


R407132
6 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

“I wish you guys would make up your minds and decide what the fuck you idiots consider to be important enough to get your attention”

Sorry floyd, we just dont match up to your level of intelect.However, the real trouble happens when people inevitably jump to whatever conclusion suits them best. This, I fear, will be most damaging–for all of science.

That being said; Another major scientific voice–Nature’s editorial page–has now come out stating that this ONE affair has no impact on the credibility of mainstream climate science:

From Nature

Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers’ own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a ‘trick’slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature’s policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.

For climate change research, the body of research and literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results from any one institute will diminish comprehensive understanding of the climate change. And well, being ONE case, the effects on the larger body of research is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.

In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are human beings. Oh, and btw, CRU is all but ONE of possibly hundreds of institutes conducting research on ACC.


R407133
6 days ago
Dilated_Rebel


R407135
6 days ago
SunTzu

That fact that the IPCC relied heavily on the CRU data, as did many gov’ts and many other ‘scientists’ around the world shows that the CRU was a vry important part of the house of cardds that is the AGW-Circus. Yuor posting of a link to nature and then braying like a donkey, will not change that

Your inability to accept that the whole issue needs careful re-examination marks you for the religious believer that you so obviously are.

So go ahead and cling to your religious belief, just don’t expect anyone elsee to aaccept it as science


R407136
6 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

Sunny, did you read my line:

the real trouble happens when people inevitably jump to whatever conclusion suits them best. This, I fear, will be most damaging–for all of science

Im hardly jumping the gun. However you on the other hand, already are convinced that ACC is a fallacy, and you adhere to it like a religious belief. And you look for evidence to support your claim (a weak inductive argument, not deductive). Im neither totally for nor against ACC. I am however against all market ‘externalities’ that affect our biosphere, acid rain (which comes from our emissions), pH of our oceans skyrocketing (which comes from our emissions and industrial run-off), deforestation ( which comes from us too) , and the ongoing holocene extinction (which surprise!!! we’ve caused too, see a pattern here?).


R407170
5 days ago
SunTzu

Im hardly jumping the gun.

but of course you were. Or more accurately you were jumping onto the AGW bandwaggon.

The reason I am convinced that AGW is a fallacy is that when the claims of the AGWers are examined they do not stand up. Since it is now obvious even to an idiot such as yourself, that the recent spell of warming was caused almost exclusively by changes in the Sun, and since the AGW-tards are totally unable to quantify, to any useful degree of accuracy, how much, if ANY, of that recent warming was caused by CO2 – the whole hypothesis lies in ruins.

Your inability to accept that shows you to be an religiously inspired idiot incapable of logical reasoning – but I doubt you’re capable of ever seeing that, so carry on with your bullshit and I’ll carry on laughing at you.

The FACT that you immediately switch the conversation from ‘Global Warming’ to Environmental issues show you to be no different than any of the other Climatards: when confronted with the demise of your obviously stupid theories you seek solace in other less stupid theories and use them as a shield to protect you from the reality that you have been subject to a massive hoax/hysteria over the last 20 years.

Well, that and the fact that you just wanted to demonstrate that you’re not a complete idiot: you just couldn’t pass up an opportunity (could ya?) to try and appear to know what you are talking about, so you decided you’d better cobble together some sort of Eco-sciency sentence by throwing in some pseudo-scientific buzzwords which you picked up after years of over-exposure to the verbal-garbage spewed out by countless AGW-Enviro-Snake-Oil-Salesmen

Post Modified: 12/06/09 12:06:14

R407208
5 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

“The FACT that you immediately switch the conversation from ‘Global Warming’ to Environmental issues show you to be no different than any of the other Climatards

Right. Because after all, you deny-a-tards have libraries full of literature backing up your pseudo science.

Riiiiiiiight…...


R407209
5 days ago
SunTzu

Because after all, you deny-a-tards have libraries full of literature backing up your pseudo science.

hahahahahaahahahaha . . . . oh dear – you couldn’t make this shit up
Himalayan glaciers melting deadline ‘a mistake’
By Pallava Bagla in Delhi

The Himalayas hold the planet’s largest body of ice outside the polar caps

The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says.

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

He is astonished they “misread 2350 as 2035”.

If I put that in a novel, no one would find it at all plausible – heeheeheehe

. . . they “misread 2350 as 2035”.

Oh the LULZ!

Post Modified: 12/06/09 16:23:03

R407213
5 days ago
SunTzu

deny-a-tards (??)

Oh dear, now that doesn’t really work at all, does it? visually, verbally and aurally it’s a complete disaster, imo

Now had you said ‘Denier-tards’, that at least would have been better, but still a FAIL, imo.

You don’t really ‘get’ the whole ‘name-calling’ thingy, do ya? As I keep having to point out to you tards, it’s really just a variation of ‘I know you are but what am I?’

Post Modified: 12/06/09 16:46:54

R407219
5 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

I’ve actually thought about it, and i think denial-tards works much better. That was actually ‘freestyle’ of the top, so excuse little imperfections. Should work just fine now!

“oh dear – you couldn’t make this shit up”

Truly. Only in denial-tard spheres does one link refrencing one scientist, equate to ‘evidence’ to the contrary.

At least your trying…


R407221
5 days ago
SunTzu

yes, dear

heeheeheehee


R407222
5 days ago
SunTzu

you climatards are cute

Dumb . . . but still cute


R407223
5 days ago
SunTzu

I’ve actually thought about it, and i think denial-tards works much better.

Goooooood fer you. You GO girl!


R407225
5 days ago
SunTzu

Only in denial-tard spheres does one link refrencing one scientist, equate to ‘evidence’ to the contrary.

Oh dear. No wonder you Climatards get so easily fooled. You guys really seem to think that the true measure to the truthfulness of a statement is how many people agree with it!ONEoneOneonEoneONEoneOneonEoneONEoneOneonEoneONEoneOneonEoneONE

Heeheeheehee. Oh dear oh dear.

What are we going to do with you?

You must have been a gamer when you wre a kid.

You never read
The Emperors new clothes as a kid, did you?

I’ve mentioned it a few tmies now, and you guys STILL don’t seem to have bothered to read it. Tsk, tsk. Very silly of you , I must say.

I presume you’ll be able to quote the exact study and the exact portion of the study which gives that date, then, from which the UNPCC got it’s quote from, when it quoted 2035 as the expected date by which the Glaciers would have disappeared. I love a good debunking, me. Oh Yes.

I’m sure you’ll be able to do that, won’t you? should be pretty easy.

Post Modified: 12/06/09 22:27:10

R407226
5 days ago
SunTzu

tell ya what I’ll do: i’ll post the wholeof ‘The Emperors new clothes’ here so’s ya don’t even have to click on the link .

That’ll save you a little time which you’ll no doubt put to good use looking for that study

m’Kay?

The Emperor’s New Clothes by Hans Christian Anderson

Once upon a time there lived a vain Emperor whose only worry in life was to dress in elegant clothes. He changed clothes almost every hour and loved to show them off to his people.

Word of the Emperor’s refined habits spread over his kingdom and beyond. Two scoundrels who had heard of the Emperor’s vanity decided to take advantage of it. They introduced themselves at the gates of the palace with a scheme in mind.

“We are two very good tailors and after many years of research we have invented an extraordinary method to weave a cloth so light and fine that it looks invisible. As a matter of fact it is invisible to anyone who is too stupid and incompetent to appreciate its quality.”

The chief of the guards heard the scoundrel’s strange story and sent for the court chamberlain. The chamberlain notified the prime minister, who ran to the Emperor and disclosed the incredible news. The Emperor’s curiosity got the better of him and he decided to see the two scoundrels.

“Besides being invisible, your Highness, this cloth will be woven in colors and patterns created especially for you.” The emperor gave the two men a bag of gold coins in exchange for their promise to begin working on the fabric immediately.

“Just tell us what you need to get started and we’ll give it to you.” The two scoundrels asked for a loom, silk, gold thread and then pretended to begin working. The Emperor thought he had spent his money quite well: in addition to getting a new extraordinary suit, he would discover which of his subjects were ignorant and incompetent. A few days later, he called the old and wise prime minister, who was considered by everyone as a man with common sense.

“Go and see how the work is proceeding,” the Emperor told him, “and come back to let me know.”

The prime minister was welcomed by the two scoundrels.

“We’re almost finished, but we need a lot more gold thread. Here, Excellency! Admire the colors, feel the softness!” The old man bent over the loom and tried to see the fabric that was not there. He felt cold sweat on his forehead.

“I can’t see anything,” he thought. “If I see nothing, that means I’m stupid! Or, worse, incompetent!” If the prime minister admitted that he didn’t see anything, he would be discharged from his office.

“What a marvelous fabric, he said then. “I’ll certainly tell the Emperor.” The two scoundrels rubbed their hands gleefully. They had almost made it. More thread was requested to finish the work.

Finally, the Emperor received the announcement that the two tailors had come to take all the measurements needed to sew his new suit.

“Come in,” the Emperor ordered. Even as they bowed, the two scoundrels pretended to be holding large roll of fabric.

“Here it is your Highness, the result of our labour,” the scoundrels said. “We have worked night and day but, at last, the most beautiful fabric in the world is ready for you. Look at the colors and feel how fine it is.” Of course the Emperor did not see any colors and could not feel any cloth between his fingers. He panicked and felt like fainting. But luckily the throne was right behind him and he sat down. But when he realized that no one could know that he did not see the fabric, he felt better. Nobody could find out he was stupid and incompetent. And the Emperor didn’t know that everybody else around him thought and did the very same thing.

The farce continued as the two scoundrels had foreseen it. Once they had taken the measurements, the two began cutting the air with scissors while sewing with their needles an invisible cloth.

“Your Highness, you’ll have to take off your clothes to try on your new ones.” The two scoundrels draped the new clothes on him and then held up a mirror. The Emperor was embarrassed but since none of his bystanders were, he felt relieved.

“Yes, this is a beautiful suit and it looks very good on me,” the Emperor said trying to look comfortable. “You’ve done a fine job.”

“Your Majesty,” the prime minister said, “we have a request for you. The people have found out about this extraordinary fabric and they are anxious to see you in your new suit.” The Emperor was doubtful showing himself naked to the people, but then he abandoned his fears. After all, no one would know about it except the ignorant and the incompetent.

“All right,” he said. “I will grant the people this privilege.” He summoned his carriage and the ceremonial parade was formed. A group of dignitaries walked at the very front of the procession and anxiously scrutinized the faces of the people in the street. All the people had gathered in the main square, pushing and shoving to get a better look. An applause welcomed the regal procession. Everyone wanted to know how stupid or incompetent his or her neighbor was but, as the Emperor passed, a strange murmur rose from the crowd.

Everyone said, loud enough for the others to hear: “Look at the Emperor’s new clothes. They’re beautiful!”

“What a marvellous train!”

“And the colors! The colors of that beautiful fabric! I have never seen anything like it in my life!” They all tried to conceal their disappointment at not being able to see the clothes, and since nobody was willing to admit his own stupidity and incompetence, they all behaved as the two scoundrels had predicted.

A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.

“The Emperor is naked,” he said.

“Fool!” his father reprimanded, running after him. “Don’t talk nonsense!” He grabbed his child and took him away. But the boy’s remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried:

“The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It’s true!”

The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He though it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn’t see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle.


R407230
5 days ago
Truthcansuk

heh…


R407259
4 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

“I love a good debunking, me. Oh Yes.”

Ummmm, what exactly did you debunk? Have you once and for all proven your stance? No. Have you once and for all discredited EVERY SINGLE INDEPENDENT STUDY ON ACC. No. You’ve debunked nothing and have proved nothing either. Well, you did prove you keep up with childrens morality stories, and even posted one,which is very admireable of you.

But again, you have conclusively failed TO PROVE ANYTHING.


R407261
4 days ago
SunTzu

Ummmm, what exactly did you debunk?

oh you misunderstand you silly person. YOU=debunker

Have you once and for all discredited EVERY SINGLE INDEPENDENT STUDY ON ACC

haaahahahahaa –

Oh dear . . . .

You STILL think that the true measure to the truthfulness of a statement is how many people agree with it!

Seriously?

Did you even read the story I so kindly posted for you, you ungrateful whelp?

If you did, and it does not appear that you did, you might want to re-read and pay particular attention to the parts in BOLD.

I’m trying to help ya here, but ya gotta at least be prepared to meet me part-way, otherwise you’ll drown in that sea of ignorance in which you are so obviously already floundering, you poor poor person.

I pity you, I do. Poor you.


R407262
4 days ago
SunTzu

Well, you did prove you keep up with childrens morality stories, and even posted one,which is very admireable of you.

Why, thank YOU, Mr DR. Now all you gotta do is understand the moral contained therein. It’s a pity you never read it as a child. It would have saved us both a LOT of bother, don’t you think?


R407275
4 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

“You STILL think that the true measure to the truthfulness of a statement is how many people agree with it!”

Right.

Because the true measure of truthfulness is found in the fringes, in the sectors largely discredited like lizards from outer space, or in this case, Alex Jones.

Riiiiiiight.

Funny how you disregard any questions asking if YOU HAVE proved anything, which ummm, you didn’t now did you?

Also, I’ll spend as much time reading your links, as you spend reading the links of others, nil.


R407277
4 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

I bet you denial-tards must feel real special and hero-like wrapped in your blankie at night listening to Alex Jones while keeping an eye out on the sky looking for big gween lizards to start their planned invasion!!

I hate retards….


R407281
4 days ago
SunTzu

Wow you’re soooooo smart.

The ability to post pic proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

the ability to reference Alex marks you to be of the highest Intellectual character. Oh yes!

It must be fun inside your head.

Post Modified: 12/07/09 13:52:57

R407283
4 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

“It must be fun inside your head.”

Not as funny as your little delusional childish dreams complete with graphs and charts off of prisonplanet!

WEAK.


R407293
4 days ago
SunTzu

I got the graph from Prisonplanet? wow – I must actually visit it someday – you guys keep telling my i spend all my time there but to be honest I can’t remember the last time I visited.

Still – if it makes you feel better to think i do well then I guess it would be churlish to spoil your little party

In the mean time maybe you might get around to proving that the scientist quoted above is wrong? Since you have assured us he is, an all.

Pretty please?


R407295
4 days ago
FloydAnderson

Dilated_Rebel has a hard time keeping it all straight in his little troll head. He trolls people for things they haven’t done.


R407301
4 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

“In the mean time maybe you might get around to proving that the scientist quoted above is wrong? Since you have assured us he is, an all.”

Right.

I’ve assured everyone, that the scientist above is wrong. So little tactical prowness you have, but you do have a big mouth.

But, what really must burn you up inside, is that, no matter how many gween lizards or aliens show up, you CANT DISPROVE ACC!!

Sure must suck to know you’re probably wrong!

And Floyd, just stopping by to see your sock-puppet fail eh?


R407303
4 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

WEAK....


R407306
4 days ago
FloydAnderson

you’re weird


R407307
4 days ago
Truthcansuk

But, what really must burn you up inside, is that, no matter how many gween lizards or aliens show up, you CANT DISPROVE ACC!!

...


R407309
4 days ago
FloydAnderson

...

gween lizards. they’re out there.


R407310
4 days ago
SunTzu

I’ve assured everyone, that the scientist above is wrong. So little tactical prowness you have, but you do have a big mouth.

I don’t even know how to make sense of that. I mean, I already kNow that you

assured everyone, that the scientist above is wrong.

i got that

What you haven’t done is do anything but ‘assure everyone’

and comforting for YOU, though it may be, that YOU have ‘assured everyone’ – i’m still waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is, on the ONE little point which you made a long time ago, but have yet to substantiate in any way.


R407311
4 days ago
SunTzu

But, what really must burn you up inside,

OH it does – I lie awake every night . ..

is that, no matter how many gween lizards or aliens show up,

I can’t imagine that they’d be much use one way or the other even if they did show up. Personally I ain’t seen any, but then to be honest I haven’t really been lookin very hard (very lazy of me, I know ) if YOU see any you’ll let me know, right?

you CANT DISPROVE ACC!!

What is ACC? I heard of AGW but not this new-fangled ACC. Is this some new acronym you guys made up when people started to disprove the whole notion of AGW?

Post Modified: 12/07/09 19:31:09

R407312
4 days ago
SunTzu

And Floyd, just stopping by to see your sock-puppet fail eh?

heehee – he thinks you’re ME, floyd.

No wait . . . he thinks I’m YOU

oh fuck – now I’m really confused.


R407314
4 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

ACC is anthro. climate change. Its the toned down version presented by governments!

And I never called the above scientist (which ever one you’re refferring to) as a fraud. So please allow me to assist you in your reading comprehension.

I stated that there are BODIES AND BODIES OF LITERATURE/RESEARCH that support ACC. And that this one e-mail incident, intentional or not, does not equate to a ‘I gotcha’ on climate change, something you and denial-tards are desparately trying to do.

So, that being said, you should stick to reading childrens stories. You’re obviously an awesome souce when it comes to that!

Have you read the one about Pepito, and how his arrogance made him look stupid? You should. ;)

Post Modified: 12/07/09 19:40:28

R407316
4 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

Also, you would think that gween lizards from billions of light years aways would have developed a better way of communicating with their ‘scientist-mists’ cronnies besides email huh?


R407344
3 days ago
SunTzu

I stated that there are BODIES AND BODIES OF LITERATURE/RESEARCH that support ACC.

Yes – I notiiced that – and equally i pointed out that the true measure to the truthfulness of a statement is not how many people agree with it.

I can quite easily translate this very difficult to understand concept (difficult for you anyway) into a more sciencey-sounding term by saying one word:

‘Epicycles’

YOU wouldn’t believe how many/much BODIES AND BODIES OF LITERATURE/RESEARCH were written back in the day, in support of ‘Epicycles’ – which is just more evidence in support of my earlier statement that:

the true measure to the truthfulness of a statement is NOT ‘how many people agree with it.’

unfortunately all the BODIES AND BODIES OF LITERATURE/RESEARCH ever written by any man, no matter how prestigious his reputation and no matter how many letters he had after his name, all turned out to be based on a false premise. A good deal of it was considerd to be ‘peer-reviewed’ as well, btw. You’d have got on well with those guys.

The fact that as time passes and more and more of the ‘predictions’ made over the last 20/30 years, by the AGW alarmists, turn out wildly overblown or just plain wrong, does lend a somewhat false tinge to the bright shineiness of their little theories

And I never called the above scientist (which ever one you’re refferring to) as a fraud

It WAS you that said this:

I’ve assured everyone, that the scientist above is wrong

was it not?

If I remember correctly you were very definite about it at the time, and seem to take no small measure of comfort from the fact that you had definitely definitely ‘assured everyone’

Maybe I’m wrong.

Maybe it was aliens beaming it in from the cosmos or maybe your head was temporarily invaded by little gween lizards

Also, you would think that gween lizards from billions of light years aways would have developed a better way of communicating with their ‘scientist-mists1‘ cronnies besides email huh?

You have evidence for email from green lizards?
If I were you i’d get in touch with Alex Joes or David Icke. they just eat that shit up, from what I’ve heard tell.

===

1 ‘scientist-mists’

It’s a small and inconsequential poin to be sure, but I’d just thought i’d mention that the word as I understand it is: ‘Scientism-ists’

Apparently it means : those who display slavish devotion to the new-age religion of ‘Scientism’ – which in this instance is re-defined to mean

‘Those that question not the wonderifc claims of lettered alarmists no matter how preposterous’

I’m not sure what a Scientist-mist is but if i had to guess I’d say something like

‘the gasesous clouds expelled from the anal-cavities of Scientists, visible on particularly cold days.’

either that or

a new word for describing ‘AGW-Theories’

Post Modified: 12/08/09 07:45:21

R407347
3 days ago
SunTzu

Epicycles were based on the notion that we lived in a universe where ‘the everything’ revolved around the earth.

Many many great and learned men, far far greater and far far more learned than you or I, wrote many many great and learned treatsies on the subject of ‘epicycles’.

Great and learned men won much applause and often were awarded little shiney baubles made of gold, as a reward for their laborious endeavours in service to ‘saving the theory’ of Epicycles from reality, as it constantly, and very very rudely, intruded on their thoery

Which Copernicus discovered to be wrong.

Very wrong, in fact.

As wrong a newly minted wrong thing discovered in the village of Wrong-ville in the Duchy of Wrongonia.

If it hadn’t been for that damnably rude one little inconvieninet FACT, epicycles would stiill be considered ‘Great and Learned Mathematics™’ . . . and it was – at the tiime.

Problem was they kept having to add more and more epicycles in order to ‘save the theory’.

‘Saving the theory’ is exactly what I see you AGW-tards doing – all the time, more and more as ‘reality’ catches up with the predictions and statements made in the early days, when this lovely little theory was young and fresh and still had it’s bright shiney coat on, fresh-minted from the mind-factories of Wrongonia

The epicyclists too were convinced that they were learning more and more about the nature of Epicycles, and that constantly reworking their theories, in account for new evidence and observations which was disproving their previously elegantly structured theories, was the thoroughly ‘Scientific’ approach.

Right up until the moment Copernicus proved them all wrong

Post Modified: 12/08/09 07:49:27

R407349
3 days ago
SunTzu

Could you post some of those little jpegs you’re so fond of, please?

this place needs a little brightening up, don’t you think?


R407358
3 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

“the true measure to the truthfulness of a statement is not how many people agree with it.”

Lulz. You sound ridiculous, almost childish. Yes ‘Suntzu,’ the true measure of truth is not how many people agree, its about how many people COMPLETELY disagree with you, the more that disagree, the more likely your probably right, LULZ.

Strawman argument:

YOU wouldn’t believe how many/much BODIES AND BODIES OF LITERATURE/RESEARCH were written back in the day, in support of ‘Epicycles’

Oh really Tzu? Wow, so you’re telling me all those books written about unicorns are wrong? NO WAY. Get out of here, now thats just plain ol’ stupid talk!

“It WAS you that said this: I’ve assured everyone, that the scientist above is wrong “

Tsk, tsk, tsk. What a shame. You never read posts do you? Truly a ‘Floyd-esque’ tendency, but who knows? But lets be honest, your full of shit, and you know it. That or you simply lack the reading comprehension to notice sarcasm when it smacks you in the face.

“I’m not sure what a Scientist-mist is but if i had to guess I’d say something like”

Global Warming’ Clima-tard Scientismists caught falsifying data.

-FROM SUNNY

Using words when you dont know their meaning eh?

Such a genius.

Post Modified: 12/08/09 09:39:25

R407359
3 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

For you sweet heart.


R407360
3 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

If your not Floyd, you’re almost as stupid as he is you…

DENIAL-TARD!

Post Modified: 12/08/09 09:41:05

R407363
3 days ago
SunTzu

Lulz. You sound ridiculous, almost childish. Yes ‘Suntzu,’ the true measure of truth is not how many people agree, its about how many people COMPLETELY disagree with you, the more that disagree, the more likely your probably right, LULZ.

It really is a pity you never read that story as a kid.

The number of people that disagree with a statement has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is true. Like I said – it’s a pretty easy concept to understand, for most people.

“I’m not sure what a Scientist-mist is but if i had to guess I’d say something like”
Global Warming’ Clima-tard Scientismists caught falsifying data.

FROM SUNNY

Using words when you dont know their meaning eh?

oh dear – are you dyslexic, DR? I mean I don’t mind if you are but I only ask because ‘Scientist-mist’ and ‘Scientismists’ in the examples you gave, are spelled differently. I’ll grant that there is a similarity but ultimately they are spelled differently.

Post Modified: 12/08/09 11:08:04

R407365
3 days ago
SunTzu

thanks for the colourful Unicorn pic, though. That was sweet.

is now a good time to point out that ‘epicycles’ and ‘Unicorns’ have very different meanings?

They too are also spelled differently, by the way.


R407369
3 days ago
Trainspotter

Floyd called DR a troll!! Now that’s funny….

Hi Sun! Yeah yeah I know – fuck you too…


R407370
3 days ago
FloydAnderson

R407376
3 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

Or maybe, Im just one of many of Floyds multiple personalities!!!


R407380
3 days ago
FloydAnderson

go fuck yourself with your stupid fucking trollpuppet you pathetic idiot piece of trolling trash. and when you’re done with that how about you provide some evidence of man-made global warming you fucking brain-dead idiot cunt. let’s have it cuntface. what convinces you that global warming is man-made? let me guess, you are going to say something fucking stupid and provide no good evidence you stupid fucking idiot cunt from hell. you are a pathetic trolling idiot. you have been exposed as the low-life troll idiot loser that you are.


R407383
3 days ago
Trainspotter

ah the real meaning of lolz!
Super-Lolz!


R407388
3 days ago
Truthcansuk

Floyd – what convinces you that global warming is man-made?

George MonbiotEven if you were to exclude every line of evidence that could possibly be disputed – the proxy records, the computer models, the complex science of clouds and ocean currents – the evidence for man-made global warming would still be unequivocal. You can see it in the measured temperature record, which goes back to 1850; in the shrinkage of glaciers and the thinning of sea ice; in the responses of wild animals and plants and the rapidly changing crop zones.

No other explanation for these shifts makes sense. Solar cycles have been out of synch with the temperature record for 40 years. The Milankovic cycle, which describes variations in the Earth’s orbit, doesn’t explain it either. But the warming trend is closely correlated with the accumulation of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The impact of these gases can be demonstrated in the laboratory. To assert that they do not have the same effect in the atmosphere, a novel and radical theory would be required. No such theory exists. The science is not fixed – no science ever is – but it is as firm as science can be. The evidence for man-made global warming remains as strong as the evidence linking smoking to lung cancer or HIV to Aids.

On Edit: I know, I know… you don’t buy it, Bacchus think injecting C02 into broccoli will give it magical powers, and Sunny is something-something-invariably-I’m-an-idiot. But you did ask, and in fairness I generally dismiss you when you do because I know you really don’t care. So anyways, there you go.

Post Modified: 12/08/09 20:48:09

R407390
3 days ago
Trainspotter

Geo-lulz!

Tx TCS!


R407392
3 days ago
bodo

But the warming trend is closely correlated with the accumulation of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

Curiously vague.


R407395
3 days ago
SunTzu

of course it is, and getting vaguer by the day . . . from AGW to ACC to TTTTB in just a few short years . . . .

When they have to constantly revise the acronyms, becoming more vague as well as more hysterical, all they demonstrate is their own growing realisation of the utter falsity of their original claims . . .

Post Modified: 12/08/09 23:47:57

R407396
3 days ago
SunTzu

what convinces you that global warming is man-made?

George Monbiot convinces him, Floyd, becuse he’s unable to articulate it for himself. Something most of the climatards have in common


R407397
3 days ago
SunTzu

There are more things in heaven and earth, Climatardios, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy,

Cosmic pattern to UK tree growth

The growth of British trees appears to follow a cosmic pattern, with trees growing faster when high levels of cosmic radiation arrive from space.

Researchers made the discovery studying how growth rings of spruce trees have varied over the past half a century.

As yet, they cannot explain the pattern, but variation in cosmic rays impacted tree growth more than changes in temperature or precipitation.

The study is published in the scientific journal New Phytologist.

“We were originally interested in a different topic, the climatological factors influencing forest growth,” says Ms Sigrid Dengel a postgraduate researcher at the Institute of Atmospheric and Environmental Science at the University of Edinburgh.
The relation of the rings to the solar cycle was much stronger than to any climatological factors

To do this, Ms Dengel and University of Edinburgh colleagues Mr Dominik Aeby and Professor John Grace obtained slices of spruce tree trunks.

These had been freshly-felled from the Forest of Ae in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, by Forest Research, the research branch of the UK’s Forestry Commission.

The trees had been planted in 1953 and felled in 2006.

The researchers froze the trunk slices, to prevent the wood shrinking, then scanned them on to a computer and used software to count the number and width of the growth rings.

As the trees aged, they showed a usual decline in growth.

However, during a number of years, the trees’ growth also particularly slowed. These years correlated with periods when a relatively low level of cosmic rays reached the Earth’s surface.

When the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth’s surface was higher, the rate of tree growth was faster.

The effect is not large, but it is statistically significant.

The intensity of cosmic rays also correlates better with the changes in tree growth than any other climatological factor, such as varying levels of temperature or precipitation over the years.

“The correlation between growth and cosmic rays was moderately high, but the correlation with the climatological variables was barely visible,” Ms Dengel told the BBC.

Here comes the Sun

Cosmic rays are actually energetic particles, mainly protons, as well as electrons and the nuclei of helium atoms, that stream through space before hitting the Earth’s atmosphere.

The levels of cosmic rays reaching the Earth go up and down according to the activity of the Sun, which follows an 11-year cycle.
As for the mechanism, we are puzzled

Every 11 years or so, the Sun becomes more active, producing a peak of sunspots. These sunspots carry a magnetic field that blocks and slows the path of energetic particles.

When the researchers looked at their data, they found that tree growth was highest during periods of low sunspot activity, when most cosmic rays reached Earth.

But growth slowed during the four periods of cosmic ray-blocking high sunspot activity, which have occurred between 1965 and 2005.

“We tried to correlate the width of the rings, i.e. the growth rate, to climatological factors like temperature. We also thought it would be interesting to look for patterns related to solar activity, as a few people previously have suggested such a link,” explains Ms Dengel.

“We found them. And the relation of the rings to the solar cycle was much stronger than it was to any of the climatological factors we had looked at. We were quite hesitant at first, as solar cycles have been a controversial topic in climatology.”

“As for the mechanism, we are puzzled.”

Ms Dengel’s team proposes two main hypotheses as to how cosmic ray particles could influence the growth of trees.

The first idea is that cosmic rays ionise gases in the atmosphere, creating molecules around which clouds condense, therefore increasing cloud over.

This mechanism is hotly debated among scientists, and evidence for it is weak.

One study published in 2006 suggested it may account for as little as 2% of the variation in cloud cover across the UK.

But if it does occur, then an increase in cloud cover and haze would diffuse the amount of solar radiation reaching the trees.

As diffuse radiation penetrates forest canopies better than direct light, it would increase the amount of radiation that plants capture, and increase photosynthesis by trees, boosting growth.

Explaining the unexplained

“Or there is some direct effect,” says Ms Dengel.

What that might be is unknown, but experiments in space have shown that cosmic rays can have some positive impacts on biological materials.

Ms Dengel says that much more work needs to be done to investigate the effect further, and their results have received a mixed reaction from other scientists.

“We sent the paper to 161 international colleagues. We are still harvesting the emails. We’ve identified four groups who would like to work with us on this.

“Locally, one of our colleagues is a cloud physicist. He was encouraging but sceptical at the same time.”

If further research backs up the team’s findings, the implications could be significant.

“We want to repeat this work for larger data sets, and understand the mechanism better, before we speculate,” says Ms Dengel.

But the influence of cosmic rays could resolve other as yet unexplained cycles in tree growth found in studies in North America.

Post Modified: 12/08/09 23:11:16

R407398
3 days ago
SunTzu

These last 2 paragraphs are hilarious – they just couldn’t publish something which negates the very notion of using Tree-ring records as a proxy for Temperature, WITHOUT throwing in some bullshit which they just made up in order to secure future funding. Any study which negates the so-called ‘historical Tree-ring temperature record’ BETTER at least find some reason to blame humans if it wishes to receive future funding.

It also suggests the amount of aerosols that humans emit into the atmosphere could impact tree growth, as high levels of aerosols cause “global dimming”, an effect that occurs when the levels of light reaching the Earth’s surface fall.

“If it is true that the mechanism is all about rays enhancing diffuse radiation, it would mean that ‘global dimming’ and ‘global brightening’ would have a big effect on tree growth and therefore on the absorption of carbon dioxide,” warns Ms Dengel.

Translation:

Ms Dengel said “I realise I just pissed-off most of the AGW-tards out there, (provided of course they even have the wit to understand the significance of my findings, which is a bit of a stretch I’ll grant you) by producing the evidence which completely discredits Michael Mann and the CRU’s use of Tree-ring data as a proxy for Temperature, and makes Mann’s little ‘trick’ look even more suspect than it already looked, SO I’m just going to make up some eco-sounding reason why my work should continue to be funded, otherwise I’m fucked and won’t be able to pay the mortgage, the monthly repayments on it are crippling since I bought it at the height of the property madness, silly me”

Post Modified: 12/08/09 23:24:42

R407399
3 days ago
Truthcansuk

Sunny – George Monbiot convinces him, Floyd, becuse he’s unable to articulate it for himself.

sigh…

Yes, Sunny. I quoted someone. Carry on…


R407400
3 days ago
SunTzu

Ah yes – I am aware that you quoted someone – that’s what all you climatards do when asked for your reasoning. You quote someone. You quote the reasoning of others.

But here’s something you somehow totally neglected to include, when you were down on your knees during your Georgie-boy rim-job

When you survey the trail of wreckage left by the climate emails crisis, three things become clear. The first is the tendency of those who claim to be the champions of climate science to minimise their importance. Those who have most to lose if the science is wrong have perversely sought to justify the secretive and chummy ethos that some of the emails reveal. If science is not transparent and accountable, it’s not science.

Post Modified: 12/09/09 00:55:23

R407401
3 days ago
SunTzu

And Little Miss Dingle-Dengel up there has gone a fair way down the road to (inadvertently) proving that whatever michael Mann, Phil Jones and the rest of the Clima-CRU™©®© were doing, it was definitely NOT Science™©®©’

Post Modified: 12/09/09 06:02:51

R407405
3 days ago
SunTzu

Something which I’m sure she is already beginning to have reason to regret


R407407
3 days ago
SunTzu

Who’s Yer Daddy?

CRU looks to ‘big oil’ for support

One of the favorite put-downs from people who think they have the moral high ground in the climate debate is to accuse skeptics with this phrase: “You are nothing but a shill for Big Oil”

Who amongst us hasn’t seen variants of that pointed finger repeated thousands of times? The paradigm has shifted. Now it appears CRU is the one looking for “big oil” money. See the email:

hahahahahahah – ecoLulz indeed – and it gets worse –

hahaha Clima-lulz!

Here’s Suckys fave rim-job recipient, Georgie boy, again:

The third observation is the contrast between the global scandal these emails have provoked and the muted response to 20 years of revelations about the propaganda planted by fossil fuel companies.

heeheehee – tofu-lulz!

Post Modified: 12/09/09 00:11:41

R407409
3 days ago
Memnoch07

Just a question Sun, dont get all angsty…

Why do you care so much if all these scientists are lying about climate change?

Or is it just people who agree with them on the internet that you get so upset at?

Post Modified: 12/09/09 00:14:31

R407410
2 days ago
FloydAnderson

Memnoch, I suggest you pay attention to the conference that’s going on right now in Copenhagen.


R407411
2 days ago
SunTzu

heeheeeheee

Well – obviously you’ve slept through a lot of the ‘debate’ Mem, but while I wasn’t asleep I just happen to notice that TPTB appear to attempting to institute a regime of legal sanction against any entity who might not choose to march in lockstep with the army of clima-bots out there. The one’‘s that can’t even articulate their own reasoning for having religious-faith in the ‘conclusions’ of the Clima-Scientismists.

Since those ‘conclusions’ are unraveling by the day, one could hardly call them scientific and retain any real credibility. Instituting a regime of legal-sanction based on the thoroughly unscientific ‘findings’ of a group of ‘funding-hungry’ charalatans seems a tad unwise to me.

But I’m kinda weird that way. I’ll grant ya. In this new Cyber-age it appears that others are far more comfortable letting the likes of rim-job Georgie do their thinking for them – i’m a bit of a luddite in that regard – i prefer to think for myself.

That you find this unusual is not a surprise though.

That a bunch of people who profess to think for themselves and dress themselves up as anti-authoritarian should lend their support to such a bunch of discredited charlatans whose ‘work’ is being used to justify the instituting of a regime of legal sanction against any entity who might not choose to march in lockstep with the army of mindless clima-tards, does surprise me.

Or it did until I realised that most of them were completely unable to understand the subject, and were in fact just pretending to understand so as not to stand out from the crowd, (the wild bunch of individualists that they are).

Once I realised that, then it ALL made much more sense

Post Modified: 12/09/09 00:48:19

R407421
2 days ago
SunTzu

To help mem play ‘catch-up’

LEAKED DOCUMENTS CAUSE COPENHAGEN FUROR

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN’s role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as “the circle of commitment” – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol’s principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as “a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks”.

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called “the most vulnerable”;

• Weaken the UN’s role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

“It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process,” said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: “This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed.”

Hill continued: “It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks.”

The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.

Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.


R407422
2 days ago
SunTzu

would that qualify under the heading

a regime of legal sanction against any entity who might not choose to march in lockstep with the army of clima-bots out there.

??

Enquiring minds wish to know . . . . . . .


R407426
2 days ago
Truthcansuk

On Edit: Nevermind, I don’t have time for this today.

Post Modified: 12/09/09 07:13:22

R407427
2 days ago
SunTzu

good man – that’s the spirit!


R407428
2 days ago
SunTzu

Or this:

In a stunning act of political kowtowing, the EPA caved to special interest groups and politics and declared CO2 a “dangerous pollutant”, even though it is part of the natural cycle of life. Now the gloves come off and the real fight begins during the 60 day public comment period. If you’ve never stood up to ‘consensus’ (that’s YOU guys) before, now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.

would any of you Climatards qualify that under the heading

a regime of legal sanction against any entity who might not choose to march in lockstep with the army of clima-bots out there.

??

Enquiring minds wish to know . . . . . . .

Bear in mind that each and every one of us humans, even you Climatards, will produce a vast quantitiy of this “dangerous pollutant” throughout the span of your natural lives.

Breathing is the process that takes oxygen in and carbon dioxide out of the body. Aerobic organisms require oxygen to release energy via respiration, in the form of the metabolism of energy-rich molecules such as glucose. The medical term for normal relaxed breathing is eupnea.

The EPA term for normal relaxed breathing now appears to be

production of a ‘dangerous pollutant’

Post Modified: 12/09/09 08:09:11

R407429
2 days ago
SunTzu

now obviously they are not going to propose zero as a standard, after all – there’s NO profit in that, but will they use the ruling to introduce a licence fee for the legal production of CO2, or a tax on CO2 production?

Imagine a Tax on CO2 production – one which you legally had to offset by pre-purchasing Carbon Credits from private companies or else face some sort of censure (e.g. incarceration in a Work-Farm) is that not the Oligarchs dream?

Post Modified: 12/09/09 09:33:41

R407430
2 days ago
SunTzu

The pinnacle of private enterprise?

It is after all one of the few things left which have yet to be taxed or privatised.


R407431
2 days ago
SunTzu

Oh I know the more intelligent and highly edumacated amongst you will scoff at such a preposterous suggestion.

But maybe the less intelligent and less highly edumacated amongst you might try and remember that had anyone suggested 10 years ago that a person could be arrested, tried and convicted on terrorism charges for merely penning poems about beheadings, or that a US cirizen could be detained without charges, much less evidence, and tortured into a vegetable state — before eventually being convicted, by a jury of his “peers”, for talking to someone who talked to someone . . . about cheese and a zucchini shipment, they would have been laughed out of existance.

and yet here we are .. . . .

Post Modified: 12/09/09 08:50:37

R407432
2 days ago
SunTzu

And some of you guys actually thought that The obomber was the ‘Lesser of 2 evils’

mwaaaahhhahahahaha


R407435
2 days ago
SunTzu

‘Paranoid Fantasist’ – i know, I know . ..

Greenhouse gas emissions

“The Supreme Court ruled on April 2, 2007 in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency”: that the EPA has the authority to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases in automobile emissions, stating that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act capacious definition of air pollutant.” The court also stated that the EPA must regulate in this area unless it is able to provide a scientific reason for not doing so.

Oh dear … .

unless it is able to provide a scientific reason for not doing so

would the fact that all humans breath CO2 be a ‘scientific reason for not’ regulating, in some fashion, the human propensity for expelling CO2?

I dunno, but I’d hate to be reuduced to having the vampire-like Scalia, Thomas and Roberts be the only thing sitting between everyone and a tax on breathing. Wouldn’t you?

and yet here we are . . . . .


R407446
2 days ago
FloydAnderson

On Edit: Nevermind, I don’t have time for this today.

but who will save us all from teh CO2?!!!?!!!!!!!


R407452
2 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

FUCKING DENIAL-TARDS, GO FUCK YOUR SELVES AND YOUR IGNORANT, UNSCIENTIFIC, CONSPIRATOID DELUSIONAL SELVES!!!!

“what convinces you that global warming is man-made?”

LOLZ!!!!

Lets see, Im sure THOUSANDS OF LINKS HAVE BEEN POSTED IN AN ATTEMPT TO INFORM YOUR LAME ASS, yet continously when debating (there is no debate douche) you ask for more links. Fucking genius, really.

Lets see you ‘two’ denial tards (more like one really stupid one) this is your claim:

Correlation is not proof of causation. There is no proof that CO2 is the cause of current warming

Well, There is no “proof” in science — that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.

Which is why your post on ‘epicycles’ was just chalk full of teh lulz!!!

Also, read this you fucking RETARD, For some basic historical back groud info of the ‘myth’ of CO2.

GLOBAL WARMING: The Rise of CO2 & Warming

PS I know you wont read anyhing, that is why you are stupid. If only I could find a video divided into ten minute segments on youtube; maybe then, and only then, we could reach you!

Post Modified: 12/09/09 11:50:24

R407453
2 days ago
FloydAnderson

hey troll boy. I read your linked article and I am not convinced as to why CO2 emissions should be reduced.

from teh link:

The scientific conclusion reached is that warming is real.

an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere undoubtedly produces a rise in temperature at ground level.

There is no compelling evidence that the observed overall warming in the 20th Century is anything but man-made.

We know that CO2 causes warming.

sounds like a bunch of religious clima-tards. they can go fuck themselves.

If the global government Copenhagen Treaty passes, the forced reduction in emissions and the added taxation is going to hammer the people of this world. do you care about that you brain-dead CO2-fearing troll boy? CO2 is plant food. It is not heating up this planet like you morons want it to be …....and why the hell did it just snow in Austin if it is so damn hot?

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

R407456
2 days ago
Memnoch07

You wrote a lot there Sunny, but the only sentence that seems to answer my question is “a regime of legal sanction against any entity who might not choose to march in lockstep with the army of clima-bots out there.”

But nowhere do you show me what “legal sanctions” are being put in place nor why you disagree with whatever they are.

Most co2 that is being emitted by man is from resource extraction, which of course is under the profitable control of international corporations and govt. Any legal sanctions that limit their increase in development or destruction of the eco-system is welcome by me. Just thinking out loud, if the the end result is only a tax on the ‘end users’ if you will, of CO2 emitting activity i.e. drivers, hydro bill payers etc. and the big corporations are free to do as they wish, that would be, well pretty shitty.

But I am just speculating as I havent seen or read anything, aside from Alex Jonesian rants like your, that show any evidence of this happening.

I am skeptical of the govt, and have no problem assuming that they are up to something, but I need at least a logical argument, and at most some evidence.

So far, you seem to lack logic.

For example, I dont really see how you jump from the imagined legal sanctions against “any entity” that you reference (even though you show no proof of that happening) to the oppression of people.

Further, in the article above that you dont source (Im guessing because it is from prison planet), saying that the COP15 is going to limit developing countries “to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.” The only way this will be possible is for them to create loopholes directly into the system. Most of the resource extraction and emitting of co2 by developing countries is already controlled by international corporations.


R407457
2 days ago
SunTzu

that DR still screams about the validity of the Science after Ms Dingle-Dengel just negated the whole of the CRU-Tree-Ring Temp reconstructions in one fell-swoop, tells us all we need to know about his dedication to ‘Teh Sience!!”. A better case of ‘Epicyclism’ would be hard to find

Since you guys luv the links but hardly ever seem to be able to put anything into your own words, for this post i’ll just let the linked material do the talking. (Except to say that for this post I will happily accept the notion that the Planet has experienced some warming for a certain amount of time, and will make no pronouncement as to the cause of this warmiing :) Though you guys probably won’t read any of it, and some of you probably wouldn’t understand the significance of it, here it is;

The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero 8 12 2009

by Willis Eschenbach

People keep saying “Yes, the Climategate scientists behaved badly. But that doesn’t mean the data is bad. That doesn’t mean the earth is not warming.”

Darwin Airport – by Dominic Perrin via Panoramio

Let me start with the second objection first. The earth has generally been warming since the Little Ice Age, around 1650. There is general agreement that the earth has warmed since then. See e.g. Akasofu . Climategate doesn’t affect that.

The second question, the integrity of the data, is different. People say “Yes, they destroyed emails, and hid from Freedom of information Acts, and messed with proxies, and fought to keep other scientists’ papers out of the journals … but that doesn’t affect the data, the data is still good.” Which sounds reasonable.

There are three main global temperature datasets. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we’ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups take raw data, and they “homogenize” it to remove things like when a station was moved to a warmer location and there’s a 2C jump in the temperature. The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data.

So I’m still on my multi-year quest to understand the climate data. You never know where this data chase will lead. This time, it has ended me up in Australia. I got to thinking about Professor Wibjorn Karlen’s statement about Australia that I quoted here:

Another example is Australia. NASA [GHCN] only presents 3 stations covering the period 1897-1992. What kind of data is the IPCC Australia diagram based on?

If any trend it is a slight cooling. However, if a shorter period (1949-2005) is used, the temperature has increased substantially. The Australians have many stations and have published more detailed maps of changes and trends.

The folks at CRU told Wibjorn that he was just plain wrong. Here’s what they said is right, the record that Wibjorn was talking about, Fig. 9.12 in the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, showing Northern Australia:

Figure 1. Temperature trends and model results in Northern Australia. Black line is observations (From Fig. 9.12 from the UN IPCC Fourth Annual Report). Covers the area from 110E to 155E, and from 30S to 11S. Based on the CRU land temperature.) Data from the CRU.

One of the things that was revealed in the released CRU emails is that the CRU basically uses the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) dataset for its raw data. So I looked at the GHCN dataset. There, I find three stations in North Australia as Wibjorn had said, and nine stations in all of Australia, that cover the period 1900-2000. Here is the average of the GHCN unadjusted data for those three Northern stations, from AIS:

Figure 2. GHCN Raw Data, All 100-yr stations in IPCC area above.

So once again Wibjorn is correct, this looks nothing like the corresponding IPCC temperature record for Australia. But it’s too soon to tell. Professor Karlen is only showing 3 stations. Three is not a lot of stations, but that’s all of the century-long Australian records we have in the IPCC specified region. OK, we’ve seen the longest stations record, so lets throw more records into the mix. Here’s every station in the UN IPCC specified region which contains temperature records that extend up to the year 2000 no matter when they started, which is 30 stations.

Figure 3. GHCN Raw Data, All stations extending to 2000 in IPCC area above.

Still no similarity with IPCC. So I looked at every station in the area. That’s 222 stations. Here’s that result:

Figure 4. GHCN Raw Data, All stations extending to 2000 in IPCC area above.

So you can see why Wibjorn was concerned. This looks nothing like the UN IPCC data, which came from the CRU, which was based on the GHCN data. Why the difference?

The answer is, these graphs all use the raw GHCN data. But the IPCC uses the “adjusted” data. GHCN adjusts the data to remove what it calls “inhomogeneities”. So on a whim I thought I’d take a look at the first station on the list, Darwin Airport, so I could see what an inhomogeneity might look like when it was at home. And I could find out how large the GHCN adjustment for Darwin inhomogeneities was.

First, what is an “inhomogeneity”? I can do no better than quote from GHCN:

Most long-term climate stations have undergone changes that make a time series of their observations inhomogeneous. There are many causes for the discontinuities, including changes in instruments, shelters, the environment around the shelter, the location of the station, the time of observation, and the method used to calculate mean temperature. Often several of these occur at the same time, as is often the case with the introduction of automatic weather stations that is occurring in many parts of the world. Before one can reliably use such climate data for analysis of longterm climate change, adjustments are needed to compensate for the nonclimatic discontinuities.

That makes sense. The raw data will have jumps from station moves and the like. We don’t want to think it’s warming just because the thermometer was moved to a warmer location. Unpleasant as it may seem, we have to adjust for those as best we can.

I always like to start with the rawest data, so I can understand the adjustments. At Darwin there are five separate individual station records that are combined to make up the final Darwin record. These are the individual records of stations in the area, which are numbered from zero to four:

DATA SOURCE: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=0&name=darwin
1http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero5.png?w=510&h=325!
Figure 5. Five individual temperature records for Darwin, plus station count (green line). This raw data is downloaded from GISS, but GISS use the GHCN raw data as the starting point for their analysis.

Darwin does have a few advantages over other stations with multiple records. There is a continuous record from 1941 to the present (Station 1). There is also a continuous record covering a century. finally, the stations are in very close agreement over the entire period of the record. In fact, where there are multiple stations in operation they are so close that you can’t see the records behind Station Zero.

This is an ideal station, because it also illustrates many of the problems with the raw temperature station data.

* There is no one record that covers the whole period. * The shortest record is only nine years long. * There are gaps of a month and more in almost all of the records. * It looks like there are problems with the data at around 1941. * Most of the datasets are missing months. * For most of the period there are few nearby stations. * There is no one year covered by all five records. * The temperature dropped over a six year period, from a high in 1936 to a low in 1941. The station did move in 1941 … but what happened in the previous six years?

In resolving station records, it’s a judgment call. First off, you have to decide if what you are looking at needs any changes at all. In Darwin’s case, it’s a close call. The record seems to be screwed up around 1941, but not in the year of the move.

Also, although the 1941 temperature shift seems large, I see a similar sized shift from 1992 to 1999. Looking at the whole picture, I think I’d vote to leave it as it is, that’s always the best option when you don’t have other evidence. First do no harm.

However, there’s a case to be made for adjusting it, particularly given the 1941 station move. If I decided to adjust Darwin, I’d do it like this:

Figure 6 A possible adjustment for Darwin. Black line shows the total amount of the adjustment, on the right scale, and shows the timing of the change.

I shifted the pre-1941 data down by about 0.6C. We end up with little change end to end in my “adjusted” data (shown in red), it’s neither warming nor cooling. However, it reduces the apparent cooling in the raw data. Post-1941, where the other records overlap, they are very close, so I wouldn’t adjust them in any way. Why should we adjust those, they all show exactly the same thing.

OK, so that’s how I’d homogenize the data if I had to, but I vote against adjusting it at all. It only changes one station record (Darwin Zero), and the rest are left untouched.

Then I went to look at what happens when the GHCN removes the “in-homogeneities” to “adjust” the data. Of the five raw datasets, the GHCN discards two, likely because they are short and duplicate existing longer records. The three remaining records are first “homogenized” and then averaged to give the “GHCN Adjusted” temperature record for Darwin.

To my great surprise, here’s what I found. To explain the full effect, I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point (rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown).

Figure 7. GHCN homogeneity adjustments to Darwin Airport combined record

YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C.

Of course, that led me to look at exactly how the GHCN “adjusts” the temperature data. Here’s what they say in An Overview of the GHCN Database:

GHCN temperature data include two different datasets: the original data and a homogeneity- adjusted dataset. All homogeneity testing was done on annual time series. The homogeneity- adjustment technique used two steps.

The first step was creating a homogeneous reference series for each station (Peterson and Easterling 1994). Building a completely homogeneous reference series using data with unknown inhomogeneities may be impossible, but we used several techniques to minimize any potential inhomogeneities in the reference series.

… In creating each year’s first difference reference series, we used the five most highly correlated neighboring stations that had enough data to accurately model the candidate station. … The final technique we used to minimize inhomogeneities in the reference series used the mean of the central three values (of the five neighboring station values) to create the first difference reference series.

Fair enough, that all sounds good. They pick five neighboring stations, and average them. Then they compare the average to the station in question. If it looks wonky compared to the average of the reference five, they check any historical records for changes, and if necessary, they homogenize the poor data mercilessly. I have some problems with what they do to homogenize it, but that’s how they identify the inhomogeneous stations.

OK … but given the scarcity of stations in Australia, I wondered how they would find five “neighboring stations” in 1941 …

So I looked it up. The nearest station that covers the year 1941 is 500 km away from Darwin. Not only is it 500 km away, it is the only station within 750 km of Darwin that covers the 1941 time period. (It’s also a pub, Daly Waters Pub to be exact, but hey, it’s Australia, good on ya.) So there simply aren’t five stations to make a “reference series” out of to check the 1936-1941 drop at Darwin.

Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized Darwin records, I then went to see how they had homogenized each of the individual station records. What made up that strange average shown in Fig. 7? I started at zero with the earliest record. Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized versions.

Figure 8 Darwin Zero Homogeneity Adjustments. Black line shows amount and timing of adjustments.

Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?

Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero.

So once again, I’m left with an unsolved mystery. How and why did the GHCN “adjust” Darwin’s historical temperature to show radical warming? Why did they adjust it stepwise? Do Phil Jones and the CRU folks use the “adjusted” or the raw GHCN dataset? My guess is the adjusted one since it shows warming, but of course we still don’t know … because despite all of this, the CRU still hasn’t released the list of data that they actually use, just the station list.

Another odd fact, the GHCN adjusted Station 1 to match Darwin Zero’s strange adjustment, but they left Station 2 (which covers much of the same period, and as per Fig. 5 is in excellent agreement with Station Zero and Station 1) totally untouched. They only homogenized two of the three. Then they averaged them.

That way, you get an average that looks kinda real, I guess, it “hides the decline”.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, care to know the way that GISS deals with this problem? Well, they only use the Darwin data after 1963, a fine way of neatly avoiding the question … and also a fine way to throw away all of the inconveniently colder data prior to 1941. It’s likely a better choice than the GHCN monstrosity, but it’s a hard one to justify.

Now, I want to be clear here. The blatantly bogus GHCN adjustment for this one station does NOT mean that the earth is not warming. It also does NOT mean that the three records (CRU, GISS, and GHCN) are generally wrong either. This may be an isolated incident, we don’t know. But every time the data gets revised and homogenized, the trends keep increasing. Now GISS does their own adjustments. However, as they keep telling us, they get the same answer as GHCN gets … which makes their numbers suspicious as well.

And CRU? Who knows what they use? We’re still waiting on that one, no data yet …

What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling. In addition, the average raw data for Northern Australia is quite different from the adjusted, so there must be a number of … mmm … let me say “interesting” adjustments in Northern Australia other than just Darwin.

And with the Latin saying “Falsus in unum, falsus in omis” (false in one, false in all) as our guide, until all of the station “adjustments” are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS alike, we can’t trust anyone using homogenized numbers.

Post Modified: 12/09/09 12:44:59

R407458
2 days ago
Memnoch07

I put shit into my own words bitch. you could at least acknowledge that fact at some point in your copy/pasting of crap no one is going to read.


R407459
2 days ago
SunTzu

calm down you silly man.

You posted while I was preparing that post, you siilly silly little man


R407460
2 days ago
SunTzu

In the top right hand corner of most peoples browser there’s a little box – usually it has a google symbol – you could have used it but then that would require thinking for yourself

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

who’ll inform the Guardian that they’ve been taken over by little gween lizards in the employ of Alex, shall I or will you?

Oh your question was answered inenough detail, mem. That you appear not to be able to extract all the info/opinions therein, is hardly my fault. Your use of selective quotation gives the impression that the problem may lie in some lack of ability on your own part, Mem.

What i actually said was:

TPTB appear to [be] attempting to institute a regime of legal sanction against any entity who might not choose to march in lockstep with the army of clima-bots out there. . . . . . based on the thoroughly unscientific ‘findings’ of a group of ‘funding-hungry’ charalatans seems a tad unwise to me.

AND:

That a bunch of people who profess to think for themselves and dress themselves up as anti-authoritarian should lend their support to such a bunch of discredited charlatans whose ‘work’ is being used to justify the instituting of a regime of legal sanction against any entity who might not choose to march in lockstep with the army of mindless clima-tards, does surprise me.

Or it did until I realised that most of them were completely unable to understand the subject, and were in fact just pretending to understand so as not to stand out from the crowd, (the wild bunch of individualists that they are).

Once I realised that, then it ALL made much more sense

That you appear to have problems fully understanding the text and the significance of supporting linked articles in other posts in this thread is not really my problem mem.

Perhaps you should consider if the fault lies with you own intransigince or some lack of ability in the realm of engrish-comprehension.

That you even appear to have problems defining ‘entity’, given the context, is strange to say the least. I mean it ain’t likely that ‘entity’ refers to little gween lizards, mem. I hope that helps narrow it down somewhat for you.

Post Modified: 12/10/09 12:24:25

R407462
2 days ago
Memnoch07

So thats your answer then?


R407463
2 days ago
SunTzu

Stop being silly, mem

Post Modified: 12/09/09 13:21:15

R407464
2 days ago
SunTzu

It’s very unbecoming in one so refined as your good self, mem

Post Modified: 12/09/09 13:23:42

R407465
2 days ago
FloydAnderson

R407466
2 days ago
SunTzu

I await your glib retort with some exictement, mem.

Post Modified: 12/09/09 13:24:09

R407470
2 days ago
Memnoch07

Your mom is a glib retort.

FUCKING TYPO’S FUCKING PISS ME OFFF FUCKCKCKCKCKFKD

Post Modified: 12/09/09 13:35:19

R407471
2 days ago
FloydAnderson

R407482
2 days ago
rasmekpeace

Wow, thats a lot of charts. Too bad you dont format your posts SO THAT THE ENTIRE GRAPH CAN BE SEEN huh?

Sure is Floyd-esque….

“The earth has generally been warming since the Little Ice Age, around 1650”

Not at the same rate douche-bag; since industrialization and thus large increase in atmospheric CO2, it has sped up. You really are retarded.

“sounds like a bunch of religious clima-tards. they can go fuck themselves”

Anything that has any science to you is a conspiracy by gween lizards.

On Willis Eschenbach, hehe, your an idiot for posting this debunked jackass’s bullshit:

Read on FUCKTARD

AND THIS DENIAL-TARD FUCK

Also, Willis Eschenbach seems to be published in Energy& Environment frequently, which does not speak well of him. Energy& Environment has very low standards. That’s where scientists go when they can’t get published in a respected peer-reviewed journal.

And his propaganda means nothing. First of all, it’s very clear that the latest five data points on the introduced data set (blue) DO show significant warming over nearly all prior points in that same data set, so his data clearly refutes his own hypothesis. Bizzare.

So how does he come to his conclusion? He seems to be comparing different data sets. Verrrry scientific.

Comparing different data sets from different sources would be absurd. Are they from the same weather stations? He simply compares them without explanation, then apparently draws a conclusion from them being different. Apples are different from oranges? Im sure even your DENIAL-TARD sellf knows that.

FUCK THE KAPITALIST ECONOMY!!!

Post Modified: 12/09/09 16:42:42

R407483
2 days ago
rasmekpeace

By the way, my links are peer-reviewed, yours fail to make it to any legitmate journal!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

I can only fathom Floyd’s response…..


R407484
2 days ago
FloydAnderson

you don’t make much sense troll boy. are you having a mental breakdown or something?


R407491
2 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

^ Oh you see, the retarded kid, thats you. Anthony’s the balding white guy giving you a plastic trophy for GNN Jackass, that and good sportsmanship. :)

Logic never makes sense for your denial-tard self does it?

Post Modified: 12/09/09 23:56:23

R407510
2 days ago
Dilated_Rebel

Teh Lulz…


R407533
1 day ago
SunTzu

So it looks like the poor little Climatards have flipped out trying to handle the fact that the CRU historic temp record looks like it’s completely useless.

Poor little mem, all he could do was rant about typo’s once his question had been answered and as for the idiot Dr, what’s there to say really?

Ranting about graph sizes when he could have just clicked the link? throwing a temper tantrum like a spoiled little 13 yr whose playstation has been confiscated – hahahahaha

what a child!

He spends his time attacking the background of those he disagrees. The raw data from Oz has been seriously upwardly ‘adjusted’ for what appears to no good reason other than to fit the theories of the climatards, and Mr ‘The Science is valid’ himself doesn’t have a problem with that. fair enough. We now at least know you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about and appear to be religiously or politically motivated. But I’d already kinda guessed that.

Should I be surprised that morons behave like morons? not really . . .

Post Modified: 12/10/09 08:00:54

R407535
1 day ago
SunTzu

what a bunch of tards

And his propaganda means nothing. First of all, it’s very clear that the latest five data points on the introduced data set (blue) DO show significant warming over nearly all prior points in that same data set, so his data clearly refutes his own hypothesis. Bizzare.

So how does he come to his conclusion? He seems to be comparing different data sets. Verrrry scientific.

Comparing different data sets from different sources would be absurd. Are they from the same weather stations? He simply compares them without explanation, then apparently draws a conclusion from them being different. Apples are different from oranges? Im sure even your DENIAL-TARD sellf knows that.

those 3 paragraphs are just pseudo-scientific gibberish

Post Modified: 12/10/09 07:55:24

R407537
1 day ago
SunTzu

DR you’re such an idiot – the first of those silly pdf’s you threw out debunks nothing. Absolutly nothing. It certainly does not deal with the fact that CRU falsley adjust the Raw data upwards until it meets their desired levels – levels they need to hit in order to keep their ‘theory’ alive otherwise the funding will dry up.

The second, which you claim is definitive proof that CO2=AGW is just simply moronic

First, we turn to the reconstruction of the rise of carbon dioxide since the time of James Watt. The early part of the series is derived from extracting air in polar ice, and measuring its carbon dioxide content. The later part is based on the measurements of Charles D. Keeling, since 1957, on Mauna Loa.

DR you complete F’n MORON, you don’t even seem to be aware that Mauna Loa is an Active Volcano you silly climatard

no wonder you idiots believe everything the Sci-tards say. You know nothing about anything. Volcanos produce CO2 you idiot.

What a moron.

if this is all you got, I pity you.

I’m surprised you can even manage to put your shoes on in the morning

posting in large fonts and spamming tard graphics just makes you look like even more of an idiot – which I didn’t think possible, but there you are.

Post Modified: 12/10/09 07:57:09

R407538
1 day ago
SunTzu

you don’t make much sense troll boy. are you having a mental breakdown or something?

looks like they both are

neither of them make much sense and seem to spazz-out a lot

Post Modified: 12/10/09 07:59:53

R407540
1 day ago
SunTzu

look like 3yr olds having temper tantrums


R407545
1 day ago
Dilated_Rebel

“He spends his time attacking the background of those he disagrees with.

You’re right. Because everybody’s word should be accepted at face value. Besides, like you dont jackass? Look who created this thread; your lame ass.

“those 3 paragraphs are just pseudo-scientific gibberish”

hehe, coming from you, how ironic.

“those silly pdf’s you threw out debunks nothing. Absolutly nothing.

I know you dont read links, thats why posting links is pointless, but if you had read the links entirely, you would see it refutes several of your points made. If you read them, they will actually answer why for example, those supposed smoking gun emails you denial tards trumpet about omissions, or discrepencies are BS; statistically, literally, and scientifically.

Then your strongest argument is cite some jack ass whos been discredited since the 80s.

More on Eschenbach:

Mr. E is an amateur scientist and “Construction Manager” for the Taunovo Bay Resort in Fiji. In other words, he is ls like you, an uneducated but highly opinionated idiot. He is published in E&E which is NOT PEER-REVIEWED and basically equates to the opinion page of your local newspaper.

About your Climate-Gate jargon:

You keep citing the e-mails (as if you had read them all) for their content. But I find more interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.

If you look through ANY organisation’s emails from the last ten years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. The fact is the scientific consensus on climate change has been reached through the publication of thousands of peer-reviewed papers, field research and the lifetime’s work of some of humanity’s best minds. It’s obvious these emails didn’t even go through a spell-check let alone the rigorous peer-review process.

That is why you are simple minded gullible, denital-tard, Alex Jones-enite following, RETARD.

Post Modified: 12/10/09 10:48:22

R407546
1 day ago
Dilated_Rebel

Eschenbach’s Graph:

His own graph (the one in blue) refutes some of his own points! Like that there is no warming, when clearly according to HIS graph, there is!!! This is one reason he cant get published in any LEGITIMATE journal.

You do know that solid H20 will liquify when it absorbs heat right?


R407548
1 day ago
SunTzu

Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

by Prof. Richard Lindzen

There have been repeated claims that this past year’s hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science—whether for AIDS, or space, or climate—where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

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.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let’s start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man’s responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn’t just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.‘s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less—hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don’t have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It’s my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton’s concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann’s work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested—a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community’s defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences—as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union—formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton’s singling out of a scientist’s work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists—a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.‘s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an “Iris Effect,” wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as “discredited.” Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming—not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

Richard Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.


R407554
1 day ago
SunTzu

NOT PEER-REVIEWED !!111!!!!!

lulz – the emails show the peer-review process is little more than a racket – controlled by true-believers.

Your trumpeting of it is funny though.

Like that there is no warming, when clearly according to HIS graph, there is!!!

you’re an idiot – If you go back and read it the first few lines contain acknowledgement that the earth has warmed slightly over the last few centuries.

The earth has generally been warming since the Little Ice Age, around 1650. There is general agreement that the earth has warmed since then. See e.g. Akasofu

Seriously – you’re thick

the idea that the historic-tree-ring data is a temp-proxy has been shown to be false. the CRU and Michael Mann have been shown to be charlatans.


R407555
1 day ago
Dilated_Rebel

“Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.”

Has kept Mr.Lindzen very quiet has it?

God your stupid.

From Wiki:

Lindzen has been characterized as a contrarian. Lindzen’s view that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking is an example of his character.

Oh and this beauty, do you know who funds him? fucking RETARD

and

Fossil fuels corporations paying scientists to misinform DENIAL-TARDS.

Enough said, I think.

Post Modified: 12/10/09 12:04:43

R407556
1 day ago
SunTzu

_You keep citing the e-mails (as if you had read them all) for their content.-

actually I’ve cited almost no email content, you silly man. What I have done though is cite Ms Dengel’s work which shows that CRU and Mann were practicing NOT-Science in order to keep their £13 million bandwaggon rolling. from Jone’s own statement before this whole email thing became public, it is obvious that CRU’s Temp records are a mess and can’t really be trusted. Yet they’ve been cited in the IPCC report. It appears that much of the records used by Mann in his well known work, and subsequently used by the IPCC to attempt to influence Public Policy, are complete and utter garbage.

The idea that the CRU’s work has been subject to peer-review appears to be a bad joke, unless you define peer-review as ‘having your friends agree with you.’

But I find more interesting is what is not contained in the emails.

I’m delighted for you. I’m sure you’ll have lots of fun reading what is not contained in the emails. Don’t forget to come back and post lots of Jpegs and lots of large-font ranting, when you’re finished reading what is not contained in the emails, will ya?

I’d hate to miss that.

Post Modified: 12/10/09 12:33:55

R407558
1 day ago
Dilated_Rebel

“the emails show the peer-review process is little more than a racket – controlled by true-believers”

So you think that the fundamental aspect making science, a SCIENTIFIC FIELD, that is to be said peer-review, is meaningless.

So instead you cite people who arent even scientists (although they’d like to think they are) and you call them scientists and accept their science because its not peer reviewed?

Good logic there sweet-heart.

God your stupid.

Post Modified: 12/10/09 12:25:40

R407559
1 day ago
Dilated_Rebel

“I’m delighted for you. have fun reading them”

Cop-out.

The so-called debunker, has been debunked

And exposed as a corporate, fake scientist following cunt.

I Said Good day!

Post Modified: 12/10/09 12:21:42

R407561
24 hours ago
Dilated_Rebel

Im glad that lump on your testicle ‘Floyd’ archived this thread for his kids to see!


R407564
24 hours ago
SunTzu

I thought you said ‘good day!’ ?

Your insistance that you’re some sort of uber-debunker is laughable. Seriously luaghable. You’ve debunked nothing, but ya sure have ranted a lot and posted lots of spammed a lott of silly graphics.

Post Modified: 12/10/09 19:49:52

R407565
24 hours ago
SunTzu

From Wiki:

hahahaha

you’re pathetically funny.

So what?

how does that mean that what he says is incorrect on climate matters, you moron.

Oh and this beauty, do you know who funds him? fucking RETARD

and
Fossil fuels corporations paying scientists to misinform DENIAL-TARDS.

you’re such a straw-clutching idiot.

the wiki article shows he got money to speak at conferences. So what? Climatards get money to speak at conference too. So what?

hahahaha – pathetic.


R407567
24 hours ago
SunTzu

But the claim that he’s ‘funded’ by ff corps is retarded. Yes he received money from them at some time in the past – but so what? You’re very silly. he gets money because people want to hear what he says. The wiki article mentions all of that and you chose to ignore it because it didn’t say what you wanted it to say. Instead you went off and found something else that said what you wanted it to say.

The claim that he is ‘Funded by FF Corps’ is made by you to make it appear that he is exclusively funded in this way which is not true and you already knew that before you posted it, because it says so in the wiki article.

climatards receive money too, all the time, from gov’ts and other sources. so what?

Post Modified: 12/10/09 16:16:59

R407579
23 hours ago
remarcus

this is getting old, retard


R407586
21 hours ago
FloydAnderson

Im glad that lump on your testicle ‘Floyd’ archived this thread for his kids to see!

years from now you can take a look at the archive and see what a dumb troll you were :)


R407592
20 hours ago
SunTzu

So you think that the fundamental aspect making science, a SCIENTIFIC FIELD, that is to be said peer-review, is meaningless.

you dumb airhead – they have in fact damaged the whole ‘scientific’ community with their antics. I am saying that you climatards have debased the very thing which used to make science reliable, by; attempting to corrupt the review and publication process; by conspiring to remove journal editors who allow dissenting commentary/opinion to be published; by conspiring to make sure they only get reviewed by those who already support their so-called ‘conclusions’.

that YOU seem to have a problem understanding the implications of what they have conspired to do, and have been successful at doing, is not a surprise, though

Manns hockey-stick graph is typical of the type of ‘science’ these idiots were engaged in.

it’s hilarious that it should now be found to have used tree-ring data which correalates NOT with temperature but with cosmic-rays.

Post Modified: 12/10/09 16:15:18

R407598
19 hours ago
Dilated_Rebel

You’ve been debunked, your sources proved nothing but company shills, your ideas regarding, pointless. Fuck yourself Floyd.


R407599
19 hours ago
Dilated_Rebel

YOU seem to have a problem understanding the implications of what they have conspired to do, and have been successful at doing, is not a surprise, though

Yea, ummm, you must have secret information, idiot.


R407600
19 hours ago
Dilated_Rebel

“this is getting old, retard”

Shees, tell me about it.

These 2 idiots like to use unscientific sources (eg sources that are not peer-reviewed), and use such sources as ‘evidence’ that their SCIENCE is correct.

And theses douche bags claim in the process that peer-review means nothing. As if those reading your research are dying to support you and your research. Apparently these idiots think that all scientists form a fraternity, or union of sorts. IDIOTS. Couldn’t be farther from the truth.

At the same time, they simply ignore 99.8% of the PEER-REVIEWED science, because as they put it, gween lizards conceived the whole thing.

These guys are sooooo smart.

Post Modified: 12/10/09 18:26:48

R407601
19 hours ago
Dilated_Rebel

I mean, for gods sake, your last source DENIES SMOKING CAUSES CANCER.

“The claim that he is ‘Funded by FF Corps’ is made by you to make it appear that he is exclusively funded in this way which is not true”

True. He probably gets money from the Big Tobbacco too.


R407602
19 hours ago
Dilated_Rebel

Suntzu-Floyd, DICKHEADS HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED

Post Modified: 12/10/09 18:37:25

R407610
16 hours ago
SunTzu

For a guy that constantly claims he doesn’t give a fuck, DR, you suuuuuure rant a lot. that’s not what one would expect if it really were true that you did not give a fuck, DR

And theses douche bags claim in the process that peer-review means nothing. As if those reading your research are dying to support you and your research. Apparently these idiots think that all scientists form a fraternity, or union of sorts. IDIOTS. Couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Priceless – you obviously have not read any of the emails you were earlier claiming I had not read.

Your constant chanting of the false ‘debunked’ mantra show that you’re trying a little too hard DR.

These 2 idiots like to use unscientific sources (eg sources that are not peer-reviewed), and use such sources as ‘evidence’ that their SCIENCE is correct.

Oh the lulz . . . .

That the whole of the CRU ‘histroical tree ring’ data set has been shown to be completely and utterly useless as a temp-proxy by a peer-reviewed scientist no less ( journal: New Phytologist), Ms Sigrid Dengel a postgraduate researcher at the Institute of Atmospheric and Environmental Science at the University of Edinburgh, appears to have escaped your notice, somehow.

That the completely and utterly useless Hockey Stick Graph was published in a completely and utterly useless paper in a peer-reviewed journal, Nature, and none of the illustrious peers had any problem with his use of Data which was completely and utterly useles for it’s stated purpose, makes a mockery of your favourite mantra: ‘Peer-review’.

As far as i can remember, DR – not a one of them considered even for one moment that the data-set upon which the idiot Michale Mann based all his conclusion was completely and utterly useles for it’s stated purpose, which was as a proxy for historic temperature data.

This peer-reviewed, completely and utterly useless Graph and the peer-reviewed completely and utterly useless published paper it came from, as well as the peer-reviewed completely and utterly useless data-set, has been cited by many other peer-reviewed papers since it’s publication. it is safe to say that those papers which cited this completely and utterly useless Michael Mann paper, are now themselves not safe to be considered anyting other than completely and utterly useless.

This peer-reviewed, completely and utterly useless Graph, was included in the IPCC report, in fact it was showcased in the IPCC report, compiled by many of the apprently infallible foremost climate ‘scientists’, many of whom were also ‘peer-reviewed.

Since the IPCC report, which was compiled by leading climate ‘scientists’, many of them also peer-reviewed no less, contained this completely and utterly useless graph, it is now safe to say that any and all conclusions, statements etc, based in any way upon Manns completely and utterly useless graph are now themselves completely and utterly useless

These 2 idiots like to use unscientific sources (eg sources that are not peer-reviewed), and use such sources as ‘evidence’ that their SCIENCE is correct.

it doesn’t say much for the integrity of your much touted, and over-chanted, precious ‘peer review’ process, DR.

Post Modified: 12/10/09 20:32:47

R407613
16 hours ago
SunTzu

Apparently these idiots think that all scientists form a fraternity, or union of sorts.

hahahahahah

Since the IPCC report, which was compiled by leading climate ‘scientists’, many of them also peer-reviewed no less, contained this completely and utterly useless graph, it is now safe to say that any and all conclusions, statements etc, based in any way upon Manns completely and utterly useless graph are now themselves completely and utterly useless

Apparently these idiots think that all scientists form a fraternity, or union of sorts.

Yes, dear.


R407615
16 hours ago
SunTzu

what Mann and Jones were doing was NOT Science™©®©’, yet somehow all of their work was somehow found to be above and beyond reproach, adhereing to the highest ‘scientific’ standards, having passed through DR’s much touted, and over-chanted, precious ‘peer review’ process.

That they were able to so easily rig the peer-review process in their favour doesn’t say much for the integrity of your much touted, and over-chanted, precious ‘peer review’ process, DR.


R407643
12 hours ago
Dilated_Rebel

Your stupid.


R407644
11 hours ago
Dilated_Rebel

“Since the IPCC report blah blah blah…..This peer-reviewed, completely and utterly useless Graph, was included in the IPCC report”

From the top of LATEST (2007) IPCC report:

Supporting material is prepared for consideration by the IPCC has not been subject to the formal IPCC review process.

First off denial-tard, CRU was not the sole source used for supporting material by the IPCC. Yet again, talking out of your asshole.

Second, IPCC review is rather extensive:

FAIL.


R407650
15 minutes ago
SunTzu

CRU was not the sole source used for supporting material by the IPCC. Yet again, talking out of your asshole.

But no one said it was, you silly man. That statement is just more evidence of you not understnding, once again. That’s a habit of yours, it appears . . .

Second, IPCC review is rather extensive:

Climatards like yourself who chant the moronic ‘peer review’ mantra, forget that the “IPCC review is [suppossed to be] rather extensive’, and yet somehow Mann’s completely and utterly useless graph was not only allowed through, but actually showcased, in this apparently ‘extensively peer-reviewed’ IPCC report.

Astoundingly, you still don’t appear to understand the implications of that, for the validity of your much-vaunted precious ‘peer review procees’

Since the IPCC report, which was compiled by leading climate ‘scientists’, many of them also peer-reviewed no less, was itself ‘peer reviewed’, the fact that it not only allowed through, but actually showcased, this completely and utterly useless graph, proves that, in terms of so called climate ‘science’, the peer review process has become so debased as to now be useless as a standard by which to measure the validity of any statement relating to Climate ‘science’.

Your reliance upn the ‘peer review process’ as the ‘gold-standard of climate science,’ is laughable.

The fact that you don’t appear to have either the wit nor wisdom to realise that, is hilariously hilarious, DR.

But still not as hilarious as the fact that these two statements of yours:

1) Supporting material is prepared for consideration by the IPCC has not been subject to the formal IPCC review process.

and

2) Second, IPCC review is rather extensive

are not only contradictory but also proof that you wouldn’t be able to distinguish yer ass from yer elbow if your life depended upon it

Post Modified: 12/11/09 12:11:35

R407651
1 minute ago
SunTzu

And when one also considers that there were in fact plenty of peer-reviewed studies which actually completely negated the whole notion that tree-ring data could in any way be used as a reliable proxy for historical temperature reconstruction, the fact that idiotic climatards like yourself run around extoling the virtues of the IPCC report on the basis of it’s so called ‘extensive peer-review status’, is even more evidence that your beloved ‘peer review process’ has become so debased as to now be useless as a standard by which to measure the validity of any statement relating to Climate ‘science’.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Archived GNN Threads