Big Surprise! CLIMATEGATE Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox!

[andymays]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/24/climategate-totally-ignored-tv-news-outlets-except-fox

Excerpt:

The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.

Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.

[andymays]

WILL ‘CLIMATEGATE’ E-MAILS CAST CLOUD OVER GLOBAL WARMING SUMMIT?

http://www.breitbart.tv/will-climategate-e-mails-cast-cloud-over-global-warming-summit/

Excerpt:

Telegraph:

Even George Monbiot, the leading environmentalist, has admitted to being "dismayed and deeply shaken" by some of the emails, particularly those which indicate a cover-up to prevent records being released under Freedom of Information laws.

[ArlJim78]

no surprise, its only one of the biggest scandals ever with huge implications across the globe.

this scandal decapitates Cap & Trade. you can stick a fork in it now.

I think the MSM is now frantically comparing notes and ideas and waiting for direction from the WH on how to spin this. right now they're stumped so they're ignoring it.

[andymays]

no surprise, its only one of the biggest scandals ever with huge implications across the globe.

this scandal decapitates Cap & Trade. you can stick a fork in it now.

I think the MSM is now frantically comparing notes and ideas and waiting for direction from the WH on how to spin this. right now they're stumped so they're ignoring it.


Where's Al Gore? :lol:

Counting his dirty money no doubt. :rolleyes:

[ArlJim78]

at this moment AlGore is giving a speech in Chicago.


say I wonder if his Oscar or Nobel prize might be recalled now?
talk about your inconvenient truths, these emails are really inconvenient for Don Goreleone.

[andymays]

at this moment AlGore is giving a speech in Chicago.


say I wonder if his Oscar or Nobel prize might be recalled now?
talk about your inconvenient truths, these emails are really inconvenient for Don Goreleone.

:lol: :D :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

I told you people to put those e mails in a locked box!

[boxcar]

I told you people to put those e mails in a locked box!

Oh, you mean like SS?

Boxcar

[hazzardm]

these emails are really inconvenient for Don Goreleone.

:lol:

Re-inventing the internet

[andymays]

Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183

Excerpt:

Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as “Climategate”.

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.


“The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball. “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature. It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many liars and thieves are there in this administration? :liar: :rolleyes:

[JustRalph]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-you-absolutely-must-know-about-climategate/

Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate

They’re calling it “Climategate.” The scandal that the suffix –gate implies is the state of climate science over the past decade or so revealed by a thousand or so emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists released following a leak from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK.

This may seem obscure, but the science involved is being used to justify the diversion of literally trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out fossil fuels. The CRU is the Pentagon of global warming science, and these documents are its Pentagon Papers.

Here are three things everyone should know about the Climategate Papers. Links are provided so that the full context of every quote can be seen by anyone interested.

First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in recent decades.

In 1999, Phil Jones, the head of CRU, wrote to activist scientist Michael “Mike” Mann that he has just “completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps … to hide the decline”(0942777075). This refers to a decline in temperatures in recent years revealed by the data he had been reconstructing that conflicted with the observed temperature record. The inconvenient data was therefore hidden under a completely different set of data. Some “trick.”

Mann later (2003) announced that “it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP,’ even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back” (1054736277). The MWP is the Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures may have been higher than today. Mann’s desire to “contain” this phenomenon even in the absence of any data suggesting that this is possible is a clear indication of a desire to manipulate the science. There are other examples of putting political/presentational considerations before the science throughout the collection.

Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, complained that paleoclimatologist Hans von Storch was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” (1051190249) as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he indeed subsequently resigned).

much much more at the link

[ArlJim78]

If these people were all really interested in science, they would be up in arms demanding an investigation and getting the facts out.

Instead what you see is downplay, paper it over, or even ignore it altogther.

It goes to show you what I've known all along, this stuff never was about science. It always was about ideology and greed. This won't stop the diehards because to them it won't matter that the data was phony, they'll still push forward.

they need to find the person(s) who did the hacking or blew the whistle on this and give them a medal of freedom award.

[bigmack]

How can these editors and news division heads sit in a room when this story broke and all collectiely decide that it's not newsworthy?

Isn't there some journalistic oath akin to the Hippocratic oath for doctors. This is like a guy with his arm cut off sitting in the ER and all the doctors decide it's not worthy of treatment.

[rastajenk]

I saw a piece over the weekend about how the New York Slimes declared they wouldn't give it much attention since the material was hacked, or stolen, or something like that. Seems whistleblowers only matter when the whistle is being blown on one of their pet projects, but not something as trivial as the global warming conspiracy.

[46zilzal]

How can these editors and news division heads sit in a room when this story broke and all collectiely decide that it's not newsworthy?

Isn't there some journalistic oath akin to the Hippocratic oath for doctors. This is like a guy with his arm cut off sitting in the ER and all the doctors decide it's not worthy of treatment.
you really think the rank and file follow that oath? You live in fantasyland if you do.

[prospector]

calling al gore...give back the awards and money..

[andymays]

calling al gore...give back the awards and money..


Al is entitled to all of it because he's Al Gore! :ThmbDown: :lol:

[bigmack]

When word broke of these emails rumor has it Al soiled himself.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/gore-pray.jpg

[ArlJim78]

When word broke of these emails rumor has it Al soiled himself.


:lol: I think he looked more like this when the news broke.

http://therealrevo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/al-gore-breathing-fire.jpg

[exactaplayer]

There you go again. Thinking the bs on faux is real.
Quick Fact: Fox Nation falsely characterized reportedly stolen CRU emails as "Global Warming's Waterloo"

4 hours and 42 minutes ago — 9 Comments (http://mediamatters.org/research/200911240017#comments)
Under the headline "Global Warming's Waterloo?," The Fox Nation linked to a November 23 Gateway Pundit post asserting that "Senator James Inhofe [R-OK] will call for an investigation into the Climate Research Unit (CRU) emails that showed that global warming scientists were deliberately mainpulating [sic] and hiding information from the public to further their cause." But Gateway Pundit's claim that the emails -- which were reportedly stolen by a hacker -- "showed that global warming scientists were deliberately mainpulating [sic] and hiding information," and consequently Fox Nation's headline suggesting that these emails represent a "Waterloo" for climate change, are false; in fact, numerous climate change experts have explained that such a characterization is predicated on reading the emails out of context and distorting their scientific language.

[bigmack]

There you go again. Thinking the bs on faux is real.
Quick Fact: Fox Nation falsely characterized reportedly stolen CRU emails as "Global Warming's Waterloo"
Oh my, a crushing blow to Fox by MediaMatters over a headline.

consequently Fox Nation's headline suggesting that these emails represent a "Waterloo" for climate change, are false

I don't know fellers. This ljb/exactaplayer brings nothing but low level, garden variety scraps. Opinions from MediaMatters, Palin bashing, 'faux'. We could get this kind of response from any playground in town.

[ArlJim78]

EP you need to put down the koolaid, I think you're dangerously close to an overdose. this isn't a Foxnews deal. from your link a so called climate experts (warmist) view, he says it is a big deal and it is quite damaging. but I guess your comeback will be that Fox News somehow got to him.:rolleyes:

__________________________________________________ ______________

-- George Monbiot (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/even_monbiot_says_the_science_now_needs_reanalyisi ng/), one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked:

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. --

[exactaplayer]

One broadcaster in the world carried this story. The same broadcaster that just admitted faking video of Palin's book sales. Hmmmm ?

[rastajenk]

Somebody's gotta be first. It's still early.

Man, you are something. If something is not happening within the realm of cable TV news, it's not really happening, is that your take on reality? Weird. :confused:

[dartman51]

One broadcaster in the world carried this story. The same broadcaster that just admitted faking video of Palin's book sales. Hmmmm ?

Yeah, the same network that broke the ACORN story, that you guys thought was BS. The SAME network that exposed Van Jones, he's gone. SAME network that exposed Anita Dunn, she's out. And the HITS just keep on coming. You can deny it, you can make fun of it, HELL, you can even slander it. BUT they are STILL the ONLY network with the BALLS to stand up to this administration and the corruption within. You might as well get use to it. They are not going away. But then, that would be too simple, you'll just keep on doing what the left always does. You can't fight the message, so you try to shoot the messenger. You really need to get some NEW ammo, the old stuff is worn out.

[lsbets]

As I mentioned in another thread on this subject - the foolish dupes like ljb/exacta will be unable to face the reality which the thinkers among us have knows for a long time - that global warming is one of the biggest shams in the history of mankind. I would almost feel sorry for fellows like him if it didn't seem they were being so deliberately stupid.

[boxcar]

As I mentioned in another thread on this subject - the foolish dupes like ljb/exacta will be unable to face the reality which the thinkers among us have knows for a long time - that global warming is one of the biggest shams in the history of mankind. I would almost feel sorry for fellows like him if it didn't seem they were being so deliberately stupid.

As the cool-headed, rational, critical thinkers among us know, The Greenie Movement is steeped in Red. They're rooted in totalitarianism and their singular goal is to destroy capitalism, because evil capitalism is the cause of all the world's maladies. The greenies, though, already have another manufactured crisis waiting in the wings as a backup to man-made global warming in the event it doesn't survive this current scandal. Get ready for....(drum beat, please) man-made Toxic Waste. Just remember: You heard it here first.

Boxcar

[schweitz]

NASA's global warming proponent James Hansen gets served: http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2009/11/DOC112409-001.pdf

[bigmack]

One broadcaster in the world carried this story. The same broadcaster that just admitted faking video of Palin's book sales. Hmmmm ?
This is a point?

Can we trade this guy/gal in for someone who actually brings more of an argument than kindergarten level material?

This fellow/woman is dramatically underqualified.

[dav4463]

There is no such thing as man-made global warming. It's called NATURE. The earth warms up, the earth cools down. Humans are irrelevant. Why can't we see this?

[boxcar]

There is no such thing as man-made global warming. It's called NATURE. The earth warms up, the earth cools down. Humans are irrelevant. Why can't we see this?

I do. I do. :jump: :jump: That makes at least two of us. :)

Boxcar

[andymays]

ClimateGate: The Fix is In

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

Excerpt:

Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused.


But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

[PaceAdvantage]

One broadcaster in the world carried this story.Van Jones once had a similar thought...

[Tom]

This is a point?

Can we trade this guy/gal in for someone who actually brings more of an argument than kindergarten level material?

This fellow/woman is dramatically underqualified.

Come on, I use him for "batting practice" for when the REAL discussions come up. Keeps the reflexes sharp.:D

[bigmack]

There you go again. Thinking the bs on faux is real.
The 'bs' has spread to MSNBC. They're all over it now.

[dav4463]

If it's on MSNBC, then it has to be true....right? :eek:

[boxcar]

One broadcaster in the world carried this story. The same broadcaster that just admitted faking video of Palin's book sales. Hmmmm ?

Now you know why FNC is number one by a very large margin.

Boxcar
P.S. It's obvious you don't have the class to run with the leader, which is why sheeple like you cave to your herding instincts and prefer running with all the also-rans. ;)

[ArlJim78]

actually the coverage in other parts of the world puts ours to shame. this is from the Russia Today channel out of England. Notice that it smacks of an actual intelligent presentation of a news event. something that is extremely rare in the US.

-_bFthzGQ0Q

[Tom]

What is this "intelligent presentation" of which you speak? :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

You gotta love the dramatic background scenes during that news presentation. It scared me half to death. It looked like the planet was disintegrating and self-destructing right before my eyes. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

You gotta love the dramatic background scenes during that news presentation. It scared me half to death. It looked like the planet was disintegrating and self-destructing right before my eyes. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar
that's too funny. last night i didn't even watch the video, i just listened to the report. but you're right, the scenes all show various natural disasters.

yep, that's what happens when scientists collude to dupe the public, everything falls apart.

[finfan]

My brother emailed me with an interesting theory regarding who hacked the emails.

"Everyone is so caught up with the emails and Climategate; they haven't had any time to think about the hackers and their motivations. Go to Wiki, and read under the heading: "Hacked and leaked documents," how the hack was done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

The bottom line is fossil fuels are the most threatened by AGW, and oil and gas are Russia's lifeblood.

The FSB (successor to the KGB) did this. It wasn't some 16 y.o. sitting in his parents' basement at 2AM."

[boxcar]

This excerpt from the Wiki piece says it all:

"A spokesman for the Met Office, a government agency which works with the Climate Research Unit in providing global-temperature information, said there was no need for an inquiry. "The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it. We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use. The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be."[29]" (emphasis mine)

The government agency, in the interest of fairness, should want an inquiry; but there's no need, according to the Met. I mean who would want to impede a political agenda, right? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[bigmack]

The FSB (successor to the KGB) did this. It wasn't some 16 y.o. sitting in his parents' basement at 2AM.[/size]"
[/size]
I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case but that was never mentioned and I see no mention of it anywhere. Your statement is speculation at this point.

[toetoe]

Herewith some examples of Mark Steyn's Climegate-inspired scientific jargon:

Tree ring circus;

Data Rape;

Warmmongers;

Warmergate. :lol:



To which I respectfully add:

The Warm Earth Society.

[toetoe]

Might all this heat have a chilling effect on the Warm Earthers ?



Come visit my greenhouse, won't you ? It's a gas, yet :cool:.

[riskman]

Al Gore, in a 2006 interview with Grist.com:

"There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

Ok Al, your gig is up. Better find a new game to line your pockets.

[boxcar]

Al Gore, in a 2006 interview with Grist.com:

"There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

Ok Al, your gig is up. Better find a new game to line your pockets.

What's that? You say "over-representations"!? A nice euphemism for that three letter word -- LIE. No? Too strong? How about DISTORT? No...don't care much for that one either? How 'bout PERVERT? Or MISREPRESENT?

Is it any wonder that no greenie (especially the Goron) wants to openly, honestly and legitimately debate the issue? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

Has Gore done any interviews with legit journalists? Not comedians, talk show hosts, etc. Funny how he avoids that.

[toetoe]

Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz represents that remark, sir. :mad:

[BenDiesel26]

One broadcaster in the world carried this story. The same broadcaster that just admitted faking video of Palin's book sales. Hmmmm ?

Actually, the NY Times carried the story, confirming that all of the stolen emails were real. realclimate.org has been spinning like crazy since as well, but did immediately confirm all emails were real.

[PaceAdvantage]

Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz represents that remark, sir. :mad:Lots and lots and lots and lots of folks in Hollywood (and even a few athletes, like one Eldrick Tont "Tiger" Woods) don't use their birth names.

[bigmack]

Lots and lots and lots and lots of folks in Hollywood don't use their birth names.
I'll say. Woods to Woods ain't like the Hollywood type which often rolls in a unified direction.

Joey Adams ..............Joseph Abramowitz
Eddie Albert ..............Eddie Heimberger
Woody Allen.............. Allen Konigsberg
Lauren Bacall ............ Joan Perske
Jack Benny ................Benny Kubelsky
Milton Berle ................Milton Berlinger
Ernest Borgnine ...........Effron Borgnine
George Burns ..............Nathan Birnbaum
Joan Blondell................Rosebud Blustein
Joyce Brothers ............Joyce Bauer
Mel Brooks .................Melvin Kaminsky
Joey Bishop ................Joey Gottlieb
Charles Bronson ..........Charles Buchinsky
Rona Barrett .............. Rona Burnstein
Cyd Chrisse ............... Tula Finklea
Tony Curtis ............... Bernie Schwartz
Joan Crawford .............Lucille Le Sueur
Dyan Cannon ..............Samile Friesen
Kirk Douglas ................Isadore Demsky
Bob Dylan ...................Robert Zimmerman
Rodney Dangerfield .......Jacob Cohen
Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. ....Douglas Ullman
Joel Grey .....................Joel Katz
Elliott Gould .................Elliott Goldstein
Zsa Zsa Gabor .............Sara Gabor
John Garfield ...............Jules Garfinkle
Judy Garland ................Frances Gumm
Paulette Goddard ..........Paulette Levy
Eydie Gorme................Edith Gormezano
Cary Grant ................Larry Leach
Lorne Green ...............Chaim Leibowiz
Judy Holliday .............Judith Tuvin
Leslie Howard .............Leslie Stainer
Buddy Hackett ............Leonard Hacker
Jill St. John ................Jill Oppenheim
Danny Kaye.................David Kominsky
Alan King .................Irwin Kniberg
Larry King.................Larry Zeiger
Tina Louise................Tina Blacker
Ann Landers................Esther Friedman
Ethel Merman ..............Ethel Zimmerman
Jan Murray ................Murray Janofsky
Walter Matthau ..........Walter Matasschanskayasky
Lilly Palmer ................Maria Peiser
Jan Pierce.................Pincus Perelmuth
Roberta Peters.............Roberta Peterman
Eleanor Parker.............Ellen Friedlob
Joan Rlvers ...............Joan Molinsky
Tony Randall ..............Sidney Rosenberg
Edward G. Robinson ......Emanuel Goldenberg
Dinah Shore ...............Fanny Rose
Shelly Winters ............Shirley Schrift
Gene Wilder................Jerome Silberman
Soupy Sales............... Milton Hines

[BenDiesel26]

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece)

Riiiiiiiight...Those must have been some HUGE stacks of paper and magnetic tape. All the raw data used to make the CRU's calculations is permanently gone. You just have to trust that their manipulated data is correct. This comes after emails confirm information was destroyed AND data was manipulated to support their hypotheses, but I guess we will now never know how.

[ArlJim78]

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece)

Riiiiiiiight...Those must have been some HUGE stacks of paper and magnetic tape. All the raw data used to make the CRU's calculations is permanently gone. You just have to trust that their manipulated data is correct. This comes after emails confirm information was destroyed AND data was manipulated to support their hypotheses, but I guess we will now never know how.

to me this is the icing on the cake, and perhaps the most damning offense of all. You CANNOT claim to be in the business of important scientific research, and then when asked about your raw data claim that it has been thrown out to save space. In this case the raw data is everything. If they had raw data which any reasonable statistician could review and confirm the existence of the hockey stick graph, there wouldn't be anywhere near the amount of skepticism that there is now.

As they say, this has been a very teachable moment. Greed and ideology can corrupt any field of study, and just because a paper is published by what appears to be knowledgeable and highly educated people, it may not be worth the paper its printed on.

[Tom]

No data, no conclusions - scientific method has been compromised.
Where is the data to justify the "adjustments" that were made?
Without that, the adjusted numbers are bogus.

* * * * *

Soupy Sales............... Milton Hines

I think Milton Hines is funnier! :D

[PaceAdvantage]

It's interesting that 46zilzal has basically disappeared since this story broke. I hope all is well with him.

I just want everyone to know (in the off chance you're wondering) he's not banned, and perfectly capable of addressing this latest news...

[cj's dad]

He probably has the heat cranked up full blast in his home with all the windows open.

[boxcar]

It's interesting that 46zilzal has basically disappeared since this story broke. I hope all is well with him.

I just want everyone to know (in the off chance you're wondering) he's not banned, and perfectly capable of addressing this latest news...

Not to mention 'cap who worships at the altar of science.

Boxcar

[hcap]

While worshiping at "The Altar of Science", came accross a good solution to our energy crisis. Of course it only works at 99% capacity if all youse guys here on the 24/7/365 bash Obama/Libs/Commie channel, wear your helmets.

Judging by the downright idiocy and bitching and moaning, I see most have been doing just that.

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/11/30/tomo/story.jpg

PS: Ain't no "Climategate"

[hcap]

Sure is a lot of stupidity though......

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/rush_limbaugh/index.html?story=/ent/2009/11/30/us_poll_influential_voices

Poll: Rush most influential conservative
Outranks Cheney, Palin by more than 2 to 1
By Associated Press

By a wide margin, Americans consider Rush Limbaugh the nation's most influential conservative voice.

Those are the results of a poll conducted by "60 Minutes" and Vanity Fair magazine and issued Sunday. The radio host was picked by 26 percent of those who responded, followed by Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck at 11 percent. Actual politicians -- former Vice President Dick Cheney and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin -- were the choice of 10 percent each.

[lsbets]

The guy who fell for the greatest hoax to be thrown at mankind in the last 60 years comes on here and calls others stupid. Go figure. :faint:

And of course the diversion attempt is well under way. Hope that people will forget that "climate change" is nothing but a sham and maybe we can get back to using it as an excuse to social engineer the world.

[hcap]

No biggie. :D I have been called a lot worse than stupid by the clowns here.
Besides, stupid does not BEGIN to describe what goes on here.

I just come here now and then to see what the inmates are up to.
Mark my words, there is NO climategate.
This will die out as the 'Issue that will not die" died.

[Tom]

It's interesting that 46zilzal has basically disappeared since this story broke. I hope all is well with him.

I just want everyone to know (in the off chance you're wondering) he's not banned, and perfectly capable of addressing this latest news...

I think he has the flu. Mentioned it on another forum.
Hope it's not H1N1.

[Tom]

hcap...no tickee, no washee.
You got no data, you got no case.
:lol:

The WH crashers have a better case than you do.

[hcap]

I think this so-called issue will last about a month in the right wing echo chamber.
Maybe 2 here on Pa off topic, 'cause of mutual circular strokings.
Have fun while it lasts. :rolleyes:

You will have to excuse me now. Gotta go back to the worshiping at "The Altar of Science"

[ArlJim78]

riiiight. it's going to soon blow over.:rolleyes:

keep moving, nothing to see here. hey look over there, is that Sarah Palin?

[delayjf]

Watching Ed Begley's melt down, one of his reoccuring themes was that we should only consult Climatologist with regards to GW, somehow believeing that no other scientific field of study has any bearing on GW. Below is one reason as to why he is wrong, physics matters.

http://nov55.com/ipcc.html
Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time -- otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans' near-limitless ability to absorb CO2. See Global Dynamic page.
This time period has been established by measurements based on natural carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing, it has been established by radon-222 measurements, it has been established by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans, it has been established by comparing the isotope mass balance, it has been established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by many scientists in many disciplines," says Prof. Segalstad, whose work has often relied upon such measurements...
Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims. Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous. "They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process.

[Tom]

Just closed out another hurricane season with none making land here.
I thought we going to have multiple Katrina's every year? :lol:

[lsbets]

No biggie. :D I have been called a lot worse than stupid by the clowns here.
Besides, stupid does not BEGIN to describe what goes on here.

I just come here now and then to see what the inmates are up to.
Mark my words, there is NO climategate.
This will die out as the 'Issue that will not die" died.

I agree it will die out. There are too many powerful people with a vested interest in continuing to con fools like you who will not let this become an issue. But, as the thinkers pointed out to the suckers a long time ago - global warming is a scam. Only the most dimwitted among us would continue to fall for it.

[boxcar]

No biggie. :D I have been called a lot worse than stupid by the clowns here.
Besides, stupid does not BEGIN to describe what goes on here.

I just come here now and then to see what the inmates are up to.
Mark my words, there is NO climategate.
This will die out as the 'Issue that will not die" died.

Exactly. And it's when you pop in that things go from bad to worse because you're the biggest clown of all.

Boxcar
P.S. Don't forget during this holiday season to make a a really generous contribution to your favorite science foundation. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Yeah, donate a few calibrated thermometers! :lol:

[hcap]

Exactly. And it's when you pop in that things go from bad to worse because you're the biggest clown of all.

Boxcar
P.S. Don't forget during this holiday season to make a a really generous contribution to your favorite science foundation. :rolleyes:Hey box Florida is particularly at risk from rising sea levels. Maybe you can invite all the Pa climate change deniers down to your place to help bail.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/index.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=55327

Maybe the EPA is in on the conspiracy too?
As the DOD? And the rest of the world?

I guess you guys are going to demand ALL their birth certificates to get to the bottom of things? The aha moment of
scientifically challenged horse racing off topic bloggers.

Excuse me. Certificate of Birth!!! :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Here's a clue for you....the planet has been cooling and warming forever, and the continents have always been in a state of flux.

Like the folks in NO.....if the water is rising, move.

Maybe in your great wisdom you can answer the nagging question I keep asking and everyone ignores.....what is the ideal temperature for the planet and why?

Surely, if you are going to destroy economies and kill people to "save the planet" you must know at what temperature we have to settle.

And, is this temperature the best for all species, or just some?
And, who has the moral right to decide which species we favor and which one we kill off?
And, what criteria do you use to make that decision?



Surely, hcap, you have to know the answers to these critical questions?

We want to know.

[boxcar]

Hey box Florida is particularly at risk from rising sea levels. Maybe you can invite all the Pa climate change deniers down to your place to help bail.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/index.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=55327

Maybe the EPA is in on the conspiracy too?
As the DOD? And the rest of the world?

I guess you guys are going to demand ALL their birth certificates to get to the bottom of things? The aha moment of
scientifically challenged horse racing off topic bloggers.

Excuse me. Certificate of Birth!!! :rolleyes:

Hey, 'cap, psst...come here. I gotta a little secret to tell ya, but only if you promise to not tell anyone, okay? If the "whole world" is betting on global warming, chances are quite good that they're betting on the wrong horse. At the racetrack, 'cap, people go broke very fast betting on the top public choices. Break out of the herd, 'cap. Learn to overcome your herding instinct and start thinking for yourself.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Here's a clue for you....the planet has been cooling and warming forever, and the continents have always been in a state of flux.

Like the folks in NO.....if the water is rising, move.

Maybe in your great wisdom you can answer the nagging question I keep asking and everyone ignores.....what is the ideal temperature for the planet and why?

Surely, if you are going to destroy economies and kill people to "save the planet" you must know at what temperature we have to settle.

And, is this temperature the best for all species, or just some?
And, who has the moral right to decide which species we favor and which one we kill off?
And, what criteria do you use to make that decision?



Surely, hcap, you have to know the answers to these critical questions?

We want to know.

I, too, posed this question ages ago and no one ever answered it. You would think that since scientists are telling us that it's too cold there or too warm somewhere else, etc. that they would have figured out exactly by now what the ideal or optimum standard should be against which they're performing these measurements. Otherwise, if they do not, how can they say with any degree of certainty that this is "too" this or "too" that!? Compared to what!? :bang: :bang:

And what's ideal for one species of life is not going to be ideal for another species, as you have correctly pointed out, Tom.

Boxcar

[Black Ruby]

Here's a clue for you....the planet has been cooling and warming forever, and the continents have always been in a state of flux.

Like the folks in NO.....if the water is rising, move.

Maybe in your great wisdom you can answer the nagging question I keep asking and everyone ignores.....what is the ideal temperature for the planet and why?

Surely, if you are going to destroy economies and kill people to "save the planet" you must know at what temperature we have to settle.

And, is this temperature the best for all species, or just some?
And, who has the moral right to decide which species we favor and which one we kill off?
And, what criteria do you use to make that decision?



Surely, hcap, you have to know the answers to these critical questions?

We want to know.

It's kind of doubtful that there's one ideal temperature for the entire planet. Nor are most areas of the planet at one temperature year-round, with places like Mammoth Cave being an exception. Perhaps you should do some research there.

[boxcar]

It's kind of doubtful that there's one ideal temperature for the entire planet. Nor are most areas of the planet at one temperature year-round, with places like Mammoth Cave being an exception. Perhaps you should do some research there.

Why is the onus on the questioner to do the research? Science should have these answers for us, since they're telling us the earth is "melting". :rolleyes:
If the earth is getting too warm -- too warm compared to what!? This is a legitimate question for which the science gods should have an answer.

Boxcar

[andymays]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CAM0VG0&show_article=1

Excerpt:

LONDON (AP) - Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.

[rastajenk]

Here's a fun piece (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-12/study-finds-ozone-hole-repair-contributes-global-warming-sea-level-rise) about unintended consequences. Fixing one environmental crisis seems to have contributed to the current one.

[ArlJim78]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CAM0VG0&show_article=1

Excerpt:

LONDON (AP) - Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.
apparently Jones didn't get the news from hcap that this was just a nutty story in the right wing echo chamber and will die down very shortly.

also, AP needs to change their wording to "its formerly prestigious Climatic Research Unit". this unit has lost whatever prestige it had. Its now the symbol of large scale scientific fraud.

[andymays]

Penn State Will Investigate 'Climategate'


http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/11/30/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate.html

Excerpt:

Among other things, the Watergate scandal of the 1970s gave us a great naming convention for future scandals. Take "Climategate" at Penn State. That's what people are calling the controversy surrounding leaked E-mails among climate change researchers that climate change opponents say expose the researchers' falsification of data. One Penn State professor is involved in the scandal.

The Penn State administration plans to investigate Climategate and determine if it needs to take further action, the Daily Collegian reports. A little more than a week ago, E-mails exchanged among an English university's climate change researchers were illegally obtained from a server and posted online, the report says.

[Tom]

I am perfectly satisfied that man does not cause climate change and that the planet will do what it will whether we like it or not. I am not telling millions of people how to live, either.

But the left IS doing exactly that, and I find it totally absurd that they cannot say what the "right" temperature should be. They are screaming like ninnies about the world ending and we have only a few years left, and they are destroying economies but not one of them can tell us why. They claim that we are in danger, but cannot answer the simplest of questions. What temperature is the right one?

And, now we learn, they cannot even produce the alleged data they used to come up with this mythical problem.

The onus of proof lies with them, not me.

[andymays]

The Climate Science Isn't Settled
Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

Excerpt:

Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.


Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.

Excerpt:

Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example.


Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

[ArlJim78]

A rational sensible commentary (http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2009/12/01/climategate_and_scientific_conduct.php)from an experienced working scientist, demonstrating that not all of them are sellouts and hacks. here's an excerpt but the whole thing is good. He hits the nail on the head.

_____________________________________________



A third issue I want to comment on are the problems with the data and its analysis. I have deep sympathy for the fellow who tried to reconcile the various poorly documented and conflicting data sets and buggy, unannotated code that the CRU has apparently depended on. And I can easily see how this happens. I've been on long-running projects, especially some years ago, where people start to lose track of which numbers came from where (and when), where the underlying raw data are stored, and the history of various assumptions and corrections that were made along the way. That much is normal human behavior. But this goes beyond that.

Those of us who work in the drug industry know that we have to keep track of such things, because we're making decisions that could eventually run into the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars of our own money. And eventually we're going to be reviewed by regulatory agencies that are not staffed with our friends, and who are perfectly capable of telling us that they don't like our numbers and want us to go spend another couple of years (and another fifty or hundred million dollars) generating better ones for them. The regulatory-level lab and manufacturing protocols (GLP and GMP) generate a blizzard of paperwork for just these reasons.

But the stakes for climate research are even higher. The economic decisions involved make drug research programs look like roundoff errors. The data involved have to be very damned good and convincing, given the potential impact on the world economy, through both the possible effects of global warming itself and the effects of trying to ameliorate it. Looking inside the CRU does not make me confident that their data come anywhere close to that standard:




I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

I do not want the future of the world economy riding on this. And what's more, it appears that the CRU no longer has much of their original raw data. It appears to have been tossed over twenty years ago. What we have left, as far as I can see, is a large data set of partially unknown origin, which has been adjusted by various people over the years in undocumented ways. If this is not the case, I would very much like the CRU to explain why not, and in great detail. And I do not wish to hear from people who wish to pretend that everything is just fine.

The commentator closest to my views is Clive Crook (http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/more_on_climategate.php) at The Atlantic, whose dismay at all this is unhidden. I'm not hiding mine, either. No matter what you think about climate change, if you respect the scientific endeavor, this is very bad news. Respect has to be earned. And it can be lost.

[andymays]

Inhofe Asks Boxer to Investigate Possible Scientific Conspiracy in Climategate

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57879


Excerpt:

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling on Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conduct hearings on a possible conspiracy between some of the world’s most prominent climatologists to, among other things, manipulate data on so-called global warming.

Inhofe said the recent disclosure of emails between several prominent climatologists reveal “possible deceitful manipulation of important data and research used by the US Global Change Research Program” and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

He suggested “a possible conspiracy by scientists, some of whom receive or have received US taxpayer funds, to stifle open, transparent debate on the most pressing issues of climate science.”

[Tom]

How come every time I ask that question, everyone disappears?
What am I, Mandrake?

[andymays]

Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_as/climate_australia

Excerpt:

Australia's plans for an emissions trading system to combat global warming were scuttled Wednesday in Parliament, handing a defeat to a government that had hoped to set an example at international climate change talks next week.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Climategate: it s all unravelling now

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018556/climategate-its-all-unravelling-now/

Excerpt:

So many new developments: which story do we pick? Maybe best to summarise, instead. After all, it’s not like you’re going to find much of this reported in the MSM.

1. Australia’s Senate rejects Emissions Trading Scheme for a second time. Or: so turkeys don’t vote Christmas. Expect to see a lot more of this: politicians starting to become aware their party’s position on AGW is completely out of kilter with the public mood and economic reality. Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme – what Andrew Bolt calls “a $114 billion green tax on everything” – would have wreaked havoc on the coal-dependent Australian economy. That’s why several opposition Liberal frontbenchers resigned rather than vote with the Government on ETS; why Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull lost his job; and why the Senate voted down the ETS.

[BenDiesel26]

Professor Mann, creator of the hockey stick graph, is now under investigation at Penn State for his participation in hundreds of the emails, including some of the ones to delete FOI information. Same guy that back in 2004, an article published in the MIT Review showed that when uniformly generated random numbers (numbers with absolutely zero trend) were inserted into Mann's algorithm, a hockey stick graphy still popped out.

[Tom]

A hockey stick generator! How conveeeeeeeeenient. :lol:

[hcap]

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.

“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.



..The three independent global temperature data series have been assembled by:

• CRU and the Met Office Hadley Centre (HadCRUT3) in the UK.
• The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, NC, USA.
• The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) in New York.


http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138392!imageManager/1009061939.jpg

[bigmack]

AwkR3uuZMIM

tbPDc5aE-LU

[ArlJim78]

a good summary and a detailed write-up (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/)on the various shenanigans that were pulled in order to produce the hockey-stick and desired frenzy regarding AGW.

[boxcar]

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.

“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.



..The three independent global temperature data series have been assembled by:

• CRU and the Met Office Hadley Centre (HadCRUT3) in the UK.
• The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, NC, USA.
• The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) in New York.


Hey, Cap, get up to speed already. Climategate is real. It's a very serious scandal. Only you and EP don't think so:

Per EP early on:

[quote]There you go again. Thinking the bs on faux is real.
Quick Fact: Fox Nation falsely characterized reportedly stolen CRU emails as "Global Warming's Waterloo"

When are you guys going to learn that "climate change" is all about politics and little about science? When are you going to learn that these scientists are bought and paid for by governments and powerful individuals and that they're going to report what their employers want to hear to ensure uninterrupted paychecks? When are you going to learn that scientists put their pants and skirts on the same way as us peons and have their own ideology and agendas they'd like to advance? Scientists are not above lying. Even Gore essentially stated that! Why do you think he's cool with the idea of exaggerating claims -- of overstating the problem and dangers? Have we conservatives not been saying from the very beginning that the left is trying to manipulate the masses and create public policy through their fear-mongering tactics?

Boxcar
P.S. Tell us, 'cap: Is being naive a fun thing or what?

[lsbets]

Hcap, since you guys love quoting Eisenhower when he warned of the military industrial complex, maybe you might mull over this admonition as it applies to the fraud of global warming:

“…the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Global warming is a fraud. Thinking people have known that for a long time.

[bigmack]

There you go again. Thinking the bs on faux is real.Quick Fact: Fox Nation falsely characterized reportedly stolen CRU emails as "Global Warming's Waterloo"
Looking more and more like Waterloo everyday. How is your search of MediaMatters going now that even Stewart/Leibowitz is on the case? :lol:

_Wt0ZaXu_CA

[bigmack]

This really is like The Twilight Zone. I hadn't realized they haven't mentioned one word about this.

Scientists are stepping down, investigations are getting underway, the cap & trade bill has become a joke, the Big Summit is next week and they haven't mentioned a word? :eek: :eek:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/900.jpg

[boxcar]

This really is like The Twilight Zone. I hadn't realized they haven't mentioned one word about this.

Scientists are stepping down, investigations are getting underway, the cap & trade bill has become a joke, the Big Summit is next week and they haven't mentioned a word? :eek: :eek:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/900.jpg

The MM has been in the Greenie Tank for many, many moons. What do you expect them to say? They're wearing lots of egg on face and just hoping that the public will have a very short memory and that the scandal will ride off into the sunset.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

Looking more and more like Waterloo everyday. How is your search of MediaMatters going now that even Stewart/Leibowitz is on the case? :lol:

_Wt0ZaXu_CASuddenly, John Stewart isn't being quoted in this instance by hcap and the rest of the left here on PaceAdvantage...

Interesting...

[PaceAdvantage]

This really is like The Twilight Zone. I hadn't realized they haven't mentioned one word about this. http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/900.jpgPretty sick....and there are still those on off-topic that insist there is no media bias, or worse, that there is a right wing bias in the media...:lol:

(Cue ddog's depressing reality check)

[andymays]

Climate scientist James Hansen hopes summit will fail

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6941974.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093

Excerpt:

A leading scientist acclaimed as the grandfather of global warming has denounced the Copenhagen summit on climate change next week as a farce.
James Hansen, the director of Nasa’s Goddard Insitute for Space Studies, told The Times that he planned to boycott the UN conference because it was seeking a counter-productive agreement to limit emissions through a “cap and trade” system.

“They are selling indulgences there. The developed nations want to continue basically business as usual so they are expected to purchase indulgences to give some small amount of money to developing countries. They do that in the form of offsets and adaptation funds.” he said.

[hcap]

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/another-round-the-cru-e-mails

CRU isn't the only group in the world tracking global temperature trends. As Michael Schlesinger, a climatologist at the University of Illinois, points out, there are at least three other groups, including NASA, NOAA, and the Japan Meteorological Agency, that have been analyzing surface temperature data for well over a century (there's a fair bit of overlap in what raw data they use, but they all have their own ways of analyzing it). Here's how they all stack up

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/CRU-NASA-NOAA-JMA.jpg

If one were to simply throw out every climate piece of data ever collected, analyzed, or published by the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, the evidence in support of global warming would still be overwhelming and incontrovertible.

[bigmack]

CRU isn't the only group in the world tracking global temperature trends.
Mighty convincing. :rolleyes:

We've got you down for one sharp left turn and yet another meaningless graph. Thanks for playing.

Oh, by the way...

NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

[Boris]

150 years of data? You are using .000003% of the age of the earth and calling it a trend? :lol: overwhelming? :lol: incontrovertible? :lol:

[BenDiesel26]

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/another-round-the-cru-e-mails

CRU isn't the only group in the world tracking global temperature trends. As Michael Schlesinger, a climatologist at the University of Illinois, points out, there are at least three other groups, including NASA, NOAA, and the Japan Meteorological Agency, that have been analyzing surface temperature data for well over a century (there's a fair bit of overlap in what raw data they use, but they all have their own ways of analyzing it). Here's how they all stack up

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/CRU-NASA-NOAA-JMA.jpg

If one were to simply throw out every climate piece of data ever collected, analyzed, or published by the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, the evidence in support of global warming would still be overwhelming and incontrovertible.

What's hidden on the longer term graphs is the medieval warming period, which according to data more reliable than tree rings was hotter than today, before any coal was ever burned or SUV was ever driven. There are several papers concerning its existence all over the world. Meanwhile, Mann's hockeystick was only for the northern hemisphere. This was one of Mann's tricks, however, if you look at Mann's hockey stick or any of those above for that matter with the margin of error included during the Medieval period, you will see that the margin of error rises above today's temperature. Two, you have posted "Mike's Nature Trick." This involves plotting tree ring data up until the 60's or whenever it stopped agreeing with their models, then using surface temperature measurements. More or less, the hockey stick graphs using this trick are two different time series (time series of different variables) plotted in succession.

NASA as of today is under threat of being sued after failing to comply with an FOI information act that is over two years old. Al Gore just cancelled a speech in Copenhagen. Even alarmists agree that the temperature has plateaued this decade, which is why your graph uses a larger scale. Except of NASA of course, who said 1998 was the hottest year on record, then changed and said that 1934 was, then changed again and said that 1998 and 2006 were, despite their being agreement among the "consensus" that we are currently plateaued. No wonder people want their info and adjustments.

[rastajenk]

The left side of that graph says "Temperature Departure." Departure from what? What is zero, a norm, a baseline, an optimum; what is it? Can't tell, therefore can't use the rest of the graph very well.

[andymays]

Gropenhagen Conference:

Prostitutes Offer Free Climate Summit Sex

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,665182,00.html

Excerpt:

Danish sex workers are offering free sex to COP15 in order to defend their industry.

Copenhagen Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard sent postcards to city hotels warning summit guests not to patronize Danish sex workers during the upcoming conference. Now, the prostitutes have struck back, offering free sex to anyone who produces one of the warnings.

Copenhagen's city council in conjunction with Lord Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard sent postcards out to 160 Copenhagen hotels urging COP15 guests and delegates to 'Be sustainable - don't buy sex'.

"Dear hotel owner, we would like to urge you not to arrange contacts between hotel guests and prostitutes," the approach to hotels says.

Now, Copenhagen prostitutes are up in arms, saying that the council has no business meddling in their affairs. They have now offered free sex to anyone who can produce one of the offending postcards and their COP15 identity card, according to the Web site avisen.dk.

[delayjf]

This Washington Times article outlines the intergrity issues with the data used to support GW.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/?page=2

Some of the excerpts:

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

The center has also had to acknowledge in response to a freedom of information request under British law that it tossed out much of the raw data that it used to draw up the temperature models that have underpinned much of the science behind global warming

NASA's GISS was forced to update its data in 2007 after questions were raised by Steve McIntyre, who runs ClimateAudit.com.

GISS had initially listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931. After Mr. McIntyre's questions GISS rejiggered the list and 1934 was warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. But since then, the list has been rewritten again so it now runs 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921, 1999.

Yet the Obama administration it seems is still blinded by "science."

"Several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters this week.

[Tom]

150 years of data? You are using .000003% of the age of the earth and calling it a trend? :lol: overwhelming? :lol: incontrovertible? :lol:

predicable? :lol:

Try a REAL graph - with the top being when we were pretty much molten and the bottom being during the ice ages.

The graph we got is about a degree over 150 years. Nice use of mis-representing the data through convenient scaling. In the grand scheme of things. that 150 year line would resemble ___________________________

[andymays]

Houston braces for about 2 inches of snow

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl//6750042.html

Excerpt:

Houston is on track today to break a record with the earliest snowfall ever recorded in the city's history.

Forecasters are still hedging their bets, but say the most likely scenario is 1 to 2 inches of widespread snowfall beginning this afternoon. Some areas could get up to a half a foot.

[andymays]

Parliamentary Speaker: Climate debate derailed?

http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article851820.ece

Excerpt:

As the world prepares to converge on Copenhagen for the COP15 Climate Summit, Denmark’s Speaker of Parliament has expressed serious doubts as to the way in which the climate debate has developed.

“The problem is that lots of people go around saying that the climate change we see is a result of human activity. That is a very dangerous claim,” Parliamentary Speaker and former Finance Minister Thor Pedersen (Lib) tells DR.

[hcap]

Are these guys in on the conspiracy as well ?

An Open Letter to Congress From US Scientists on Climate Change and Recently Stolen Emails

by Climate Experts
As U.S. scientists with substantial expertise on climate change and its impacts on natural ecosystems, our built environment and human well-being, we want to assure policy makers and the public of the integrity of the underlying scientific research and the need for urgent action to reduce heat-trapping emissions. In the last few weeks, opponents of taking action on climate change have misrepresented both the content and the significance of stolen emails to obscure public understanding of climate science and the scientific process.

We would like to set the record straight.

The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process.

As the recent letter to Congress from 18 leading U.S. scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society, states:

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. … If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.”


These “multiple independent lines of evidence” are drawn from numerous public and private research centers all across the United States and beyond, including several independent analyses of surface temperature data. Even without including analyses from the UK research center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence underlying our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust.

We urge you to take account of this as you make decisions on climate policy.

Member of National Academy of Sciences
Institutional affiliation for identification purposes only

Signed:

David Archer, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of the Geophysical Sciences
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL

William C. Clark, Ph.D.^
Harvey Brooks Professor of International Science, Public Policy, and Human Development
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Peter C. Frumhoff, Ph.D.
Director of Science and Policy
Chief Scientist, Climate Campaign
Union of Concerned Scientists
Cambridge, MA

Inez Fung, Ph.D.^
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Co-Director, Berkeley Institute of the Environment
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA

Neal Lane, Ph.D.
Professor
Rice University
Former Director, National Science Foundation
Former Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Houston, TX

Michael MacCracken, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs
The Climate Institute
Washington, DC

Pamela Matson, Ph.D.^
Professor
School of Earth Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, CA

James J. McCarthy, Ph.D.
Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Jerry Melillo, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist and Director Emeritus
The Ecosystems Center
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA

Edward L. Miles, Ph.D.^
Bloedel Professor of Marine Studies and Public Affairs
School of Marine Affairs
Co-Director, Center for Science in the Earth System, JISAO
University of Washington
Seattle, WA

Mario J. Molina, Ph.D.^
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
Nobel Laureate, Chemistry
San Diego, CA

Ellen Mosley-Thompson, Ph.D.^
Director, Byrd Polar Research Center
Professor of Geography and University Distinguished Scholar
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH

Gerald R. North, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and Oceanography
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX

Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D.
Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs
Department of Geosciences and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ

Jonathan T. Overpeck, Ph.D.
Co-Director, Institute of the Environment
Professor
Department of Geosciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ

Ronald G. Prinn, Ph.D.
TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science
Director, Center for Global Change Science
Co-Director, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA

Alan Robock, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor
Rutgers University
President, Atmospheric Sciences Section, American Geophysical Union
Chair-Elect, Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences Section, American Association for the Advancement of Science
New Brunswick, NJ

Benjamin D. Santer, Ph.D.
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA

William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D.^
President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Millbrook, NY

Daniel P. Schrag, Ph.D.
Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology
Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering
Director, Harvard University Center for the Environment
Cambridge, MA

Drew Shindell, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
New York, NY

Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA

Warren M. Washington, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, CO

Donald J. Wuebbles, Ph.D
. The Harry E. Preble Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL

Carl Wunsch, Ph.D.^
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA

[Boris]

Are these guys in on the conspiracy as well ?

How are they funded?

nEiLgbBGKVk

[BenDiesel26]

I suppose posting the list of 32000 American Scientists, over 9000 with PhD's, stating the case against AGW would probably violate the TOS. Those MIT scientists that observed that SIMULTANEOUS increases in methane late last year all over the world that could not possibly be caused by humans (methane is much stronger than CO2, despite what Al Gore said when asked why he still eats burgers) must have a screw loose. I mean, who cares that the Artic was actually warmer in the 1940's than it is now?

[bigmack]

Consider hcap a warmmonger.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/12_6_09_07_04_27.png

[ArlJim78]

Are these guys in on the conspiracy as well ?
It sure appears like it. Only scientists pushing an agenda write open letters to congress supporting legislation. The content of that letter is as shoddy as the science coming out of the UK. There is no there there. They say the evidence is overwhelming but present none of it, we're just supposed to trust them I guess. Trust us because we've got this figured out and the conclusion is abundantly clear. Baloney.

I've got news for you, science has been corrupted by politics. Don't be fooled by authoritative looking PR letters. Follow the money as they say.

[The Judge]

the people that live in or near these area's what has been happening with the weather in their area, they should know.

Glad to hear there is no global warming, but how could that possibly be? You mean China can arm their population with fossil fuel burning cars instead of bikes, glaciers recede , trees are cut down all over the world but the weather is fine, it adjusts and will continue to adjust no matter what its people do?

That pink haze that you can cut with a butter knife over Mexico City and Los Angeles has what, a heat producing effect or cooling? All those that say cooling raise your hand.

The last Olympics, what was the big concern, SMOG. It so bad it was thought that runners might not be able to run the marathon. As a matter of fact there was a great concern about all the outdoor events because of the heavy smog.

Again ask the local they know.

[boxcar]

the people that live in or near these area's what has been happening with the weather in their area, they should know.

Glad to hear there is no global warming, but how could that possibly be? You mean China can arm their population with fossil fuel burning cars instead of bikes, glaciers recede , trees are cut down all over the world but the weather is fine, it adjusts and will continue to adjust no matter what its people do?

That pink haze that you can cut with a butter knife over Mexico City and Los Angeles has what, a heat producing effect or cooling? All those that say cooling raise your hand.

The last Olympics, what was the big concern, SMOG. It so bad it was thought that runners might not be able to run the marathon. As a matter of fact there was a great concern about all the outdoor events because of the heavy smog.

Again ask the local they know.

Then let the locals fix the problem on a local level if there is a serious problem. There's no need to cripple capitalism on a global scale or to impose taxes on a global scale on all developed nations, etc. In short, local problems don't require global fixes.

Boxcar

[pandy]

Good post, it's amazing that this story has not even been mentioned once on NBC's today show. Does anyone know if the NY TIMES has covered it?

[exactaplayer]

Here is a link with more data.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/12/05/climate.data.met.office/

[bigmack]

the people that live in or near these area's what has been happening with the weather in their area, they should know.
Finger in the wind science? That's rich.

Look, air pollution, dumping waste in water are unhealthy things. Cutting down on exhaust just makes sense.

Unfortunately, we're addressing "global warming".

[Tom]

The most severe case of global warming this years was Tiger driving a gas guzzler into a tree. :lol:

[andymays]

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

Excerpt:

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

[The Judge]

you didn't even suspect that people had anything to do with "global warming".
What did think was going on here is some help you can just google it or crack open a grammar school book. This might save you some time.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp

[The Judge]

locals can fix somethings but other problems are national or even worldwide in scope. Almost everything that would have to do with warming of the atmosphere
would have an impact on interstate commerce and hence needs federal approval.

[delayjf]

Follow the money as they say.

What do you want to bet their investment portfolios mirror Al Gore's. They should submit their evidense and raw data for all to see.

[PaceAdvantage]

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

Excerpt:

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.Ahhhh...the hypocrisy of it all....makes me all warm and fuzzy inside...time for a bathroom break! :lol:

[hcap]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/07-1

"Let's look at the amount of money being spent on lobbying efforts by the fossil fuel industry compared to environmental groups to see their relative influence. According to Center for Public Integrity, there are currently 2,663 climate change lobbyists working on Capitol Hill. That's five lobbyists for every member of Congress. Climate lobbyists working for major industries outnumber those working for environmental, health, and alternative energy groups by more than seven to one. For the second quarter of 2009, here is a list compiled by the Center for Public Integrity of all the oil, gas, and coal mining groups that spent more than $100,000 on lobbying (this includes all lobbying, not just climate change lobbying):

Chevron $6,485,000
Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
BP America $4,270,000
ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
Shell Oil Company $950,000
Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
Williams Companies $920,000
Flint Hills Resources $820,000
Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
National Mining Association $770,000
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
Devon Energy $695,000 Sunoco $585,000
Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
Peabody Energy $420,000
Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
America's Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
El Paso Corporation $261,000 Spectra Energy $279,000
National Propane Gas Association $242,000
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
Nexen, Inc $230,000
Denbury Resources $200,000
Nisource, Inc $180,000
Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
Tesoro Companies $119,000

Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:

Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500
Nature Conservancy $650,000
Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000
National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000
Sierra Club $120,000
Defenders of Wildlife $120,000
Environmental Defense Fund $100,000

If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects both sets of numbers. The numbers don't even include lobbying money from other industries lobbying against climate change, such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc."

.................................................. .....................................

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/08-4

"ClimateGate Is Watergate Redux

by Richard Graves

Some environmental leaders have been working to minimize the scandal of ClimateGate, by focusing on the fact the hacked email archive of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit has nothing, besides a few cherry picked quotes taken out of context, that casts a shadow of a doubt upon validity of modern climate science. They are wrong. ClimateGate is a huge scandal, probably bigger than they even imagine.

The real scandal is not the email archive, or even how it was acquired, sorted, and uploaded to a Russian server, but rather the emerging evidence of a coordinated international campaign to target and harass climate scientists, break and enter into government climate labs, and misrepresent climate science through a sophisticated media infrastructure on the eve of the international climate talks."

....One major mistake these groups, including ClimateDepot and Newsbusters, made was in labeling this manufactured crisis as ClimateGate. Perhaps a little history is in order, as almost no news reports even referenced the fact that the Watergate scandal centered around the breaking and entering of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate hotel, by a group of right-wing shadow operatives that a subsequent investigation by the FBI connected to the 1972 Committee to Re-elect the President, CREEP.

[rastajenk]

Desperate. Sad, and desperate.

[bigmack]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/12_9_09_14_25_43.png

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

[exactaplayer]

This bs from the same channel (faux) that reported 120 percent of the people polled responded . :lol:

[bigmack]

you didn't even suspect that people had anything to do with "global warming".
What did think was going on here is some help you can just google it or crack open a grammar school book. This might save you some time.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp
Yo, that factoid site you done got there is the Shovel Dung arm of Earth First, Greenpeace & The Sierra Club. Rendering them laughable. What else ya got?

[bigmack]

This bs from the same channel (faux) that reported 120 percent of the people polled responded .
What bs are you referring to now?

[exactaplayer]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-8-2009/gretchen-carlson-dumbs-down
comes about 1 minute into video.

[Tom]

The numbers come directly from the Rasmussen site, not Fox.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/americans_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warmi ng

Same problem with polls I have always said - we need to see the data.
I will ask them to explain the numbers.

[hcap]

You would not recognize a fact if you forcibly sat on it.

http://www.commondreams.org/

COPENHAGEN - The decade of 2000 to 2009 appears to be the warmest one in the modern record, the World Meteorological Organization reported in a new analysis on Tuesday.

The announcement is likely to be viewed as a rejoinder to a renewed challenge from skeptics to the scientific evidence for global warming, as international negotiators here seek to devise a global response to climate change.

The period from 2000 through 2009 has been "warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s, and so on," Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the international weather agency, said at a news conference here.

[lsbets]

You would not recognize a fact if you forcibly sat on it.


I guess that depends how you define a "fact". When the raw data is adjusted up to 2 degrees C higher to fit a preconceived notion of warming, I have a hard time calling it a fact. It seems to me that the "facts are being fixed around the policy."

[Boris]

You would not recognize a fact if you forcibly sat on it.

http://www.commondreams.org/

COPENHAGEN - The decade of 2000 to 2009 appears to be the warmest one in the modern record, the World Meteorological Organization reported in a new analysis on Tuesday.

The announcement is likely to be viewed as a rejoinder to a renewed challenge from skeptics to the scientific evidence for global warming, as international negotiators here seek to devise a global response to climate change.

The period from 2000 through 2009 has been "warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s, and so on," Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the international weather agency, said at a news conference here.
You didn't link to an actual article, and what you posted doesn't say, so how much of the warming do they feel is caused by us humans? Here's a quote I found elsewhere.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

I pulled the quote from the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Minority Staff Report (Inhofe). http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=d6d95751-802a-23ad-4496-7ec7e1641f2f

Not sure if you want to read what the over 700 scientists have to add to the discussion. There is a Majority side to this site if you need Sen. Boxer's pov.

[Boris]

When the raw data is adjusted up to 2 degrees C higher to fit a preconceived notion of warming ...."
Perhaps that is what they mean by "man made" global warming.

[Tom]

Perhaps that is what they mean by "man made" global warming.

:lol: Post of the Decade! :lol:

[BenDiesel26]

After blatantly lying in an interview stating the hacked emails are 10 years old (some are from 2005 and 2006) and using security guards to avoid questions on climategate, Gore now has made another booboo by again blatantly lying about the science he claims to know. This man is a liar, plain and simple, and almost everything that seems to come out of his mouth is most likely an exaggeration. Nobody seems to mention that the artic was hotter in the 40's the it is now.

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece)

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

[dartman51]

After blatantly lying in an interview stating the hacked emails are 10 years old (some are from 2005 and 2006) and using security guards to avoid questions on climategate, Gore now has made another booboo by again blatantly lying about the science he claims to know. This man is a liar, plain and simple, and almost everything that seems to come out of his mouth is most likely an exaggeration. Nobody seems to mention that the artic was hotter in the 40's the it is now.

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece)

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

C'mon Ben, who ya gonna believe, Mr Nobel Academy Award, or some lyin' scientist??? I mean, like, you're talkin' about the man who invented the internet. :lol:

[boxcar]

Gore has admitted that it's fine to lie, i.e. deliberately overstate and exaggerate to the unwashed, skeptical, ignorant masses. Naturally, it's the fault of the skeptics that he's "forced" to do that, and has nothing at all to with the anemic, lame case for man-made global warming itself. Case closed. When someone thinks he has to lie or misrepresent the facts to make his case, then this should tell any thinking and intellectually honest person that there's no case to be made.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Brace yourselves and grab a tissue.

dIjeVcbg9iY

Al & Harry were later seen taking a carriage ride together in Central Park.

[ezrabrooks]

Calgary has beaten a weather record set more than 100 years ago. Monday morning, temp fell to a minus 32.4 degrees, beating the old Record of the Winer of 1893 by .2 degrees. Climate change?

[lsbets]

Calgary has beaten a weather record set more than 100 years ago. Monday morning, temp fell to a minus 32.4 degrees, beating the old Record of the Winer of 1893 by .2 degrees. Climate change?

Once they homogenize the data, you'll discover it was 10 degrees warmer than you thought on Monday.

[rastajenk]

"Hide the decline!!!"

[Tom]

This is the "change" SMTW has been looking for. :D

[BenDiesel26]

Just recently, the IEA in Russia has now issued a statement saying the CRU improperly tampered with their data, much of which is crucial to the global warming argument. According to the report, the CRU used data from only 25% of the temperature stations, leaving out over 40% of Russia's land. The remaining stations show no evidence of global warming while many of the stations used had incomplete data. The final conclusions:
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

Link (http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html)