or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Climategate - Page 10

post #361 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

So you don't want to talk to the actual science behind climate change, do you?

You'd rather stick your head in the sand, stick your fingers in your ears, completely ignore the vast body of actual scientific evidence that supports HIGW.

Is that a correct reading of your entire opinion on the matter of the actual climate science?

Off topic. This thread is about the emails that disclose fraud. (More side stepping)
post #362 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Not sure what your reply has to do with my post but... \ Enjoy.

Go back then and read your own words.

1) We want all the raw data. Climate scientists: Here's all the raw data.

2) We want all the source code. Climate scientists: Here's all the source code.

3) We don't want to do any original research. Climate scientists: Do your own research and analyses, based on the scientific method and submit your results to the well accepted peer review climate science processes. Good works will get published regardless of the source, heck, sometimes bad works occasionaly get published, the peer review process isn't perfect, after all.

4) I can't compile the source code or the raw data doesn't match the source code because we Denialers are mostly a bunch climate science n00bs. Climate scientists: Create your own source code, we aren't here just to serve you, after all we have real research work to do.

5) GOTO1

So basicaly you ask, and you ask, and you ask, ..., ad infinitum, ad nauseam. No amount of assistance or transparancy will never be enough for the Denialers, in that sense Denialers are exactly like Birthers, they'll never be satisfied, no matter the amount of factual information given to them.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #363 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Off topic. This thread is about the emails that disclose fraud. (More side stepping)

This thread is not about the emails that disclose fraud.

Just look at what dmz posted, stuff straight from the DI blog, or so it would appear as though that were the case, at least given the very similar thought processes and underlying themes.

Sorry Bucko.

There was no fraud, it's only in the eye of the beholder, for your eyes only.

Same as it ever was.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #364 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Indeed.

I'd say you're a waste of my time if you weren't so darn entertaining.

Ditto.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #365 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Follow the money:

Phil Jones has collected a staggering $22.6 million in grants

SHOCKER: Reseachers apply for research grants, and there is research money to be had.

STUNNING!

Like $22.6M went directly into Jones bank account. Right?

Care to even open the Excel file and note the multiple PI's and others (not named) that would naturally be supported with this research money?

Care to give this research grant money received over ~19 years some proper context?

Don't think so!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #366 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Off topic. This thread is about the emails that disclose fraud. (More side stepping)

But you guys are clearly trying to imply that if there is a molehill of fraud involved in climate research, then the entire mountain of research is fraudulent. That is a false conclusion.
post #367 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Cue: blanket dismissal of this because frank doesn't like the source.

Assume no actual engagement of the claims.

Your claims to be a fortune teller are not well founded.

What claims?

The Denialers.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #368 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But you guys are clearly trying to imply that if there is a molehill of fraud involved in climate research, then the entire mountain of research is fraudulent. That is a false conclusion.


The guilt by association fallacy ploy.

However, it does not carry with it any weight.

Same as it ever was. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #369 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, as expected. An ad-hominem argument/attack.



Way to obfuscate, frank. In the context of this thread's original topic, the point is that the peer-review process was highly flawed...even corrupt. The e-mails that are referenced demonstrate this clearly and unequivocally. Do you need examples and specific quotes? Or, are you questioning the veracity of the e-mails themselves?

Your premise is flawed.

Seiously, giving you the time of day, is asking for too much.

You don't even understand the very basics of climate science, as has been shown countless times here in PO in the past.

Nuff said.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #370 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

CSMonitor has a page where they are aggregating much of what is going on in the news on this...

http://features.csmonitor.com/enviro...%93-whats-new/

The Discovery Institute has a page where they are aggregating much of what is going on in the news on this...

Douche Institute Blog
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #371 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Canada's Small Dead Animals blog is doing a great job as well.

Yes, real objectivity is to be expected from that blog-o-smear;

Small Dead Animals

Quote:
Small Dead Animals (or SDA) is an award-winning Canadian blog, focusing largely on politics (Canadian, U.S., British and international) from a conservative perspective.

Quote:
In 2008, SDA was narrowly voted Best Conservative Blog in North America over Ace of Spades HQ.

Given your well known political persuasion, I'd expect nothing less.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #372 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Go bach then and read your own words.

1) We want all the raw data. Climate scientists: Here's all the raw data.

2) We want all the source code. Climate scientists: Here's all the source code.

3) We don't want to do any original research. Climate scientists: Do your own research and analyses, based on the scientific method and submit your results to the well accepted peer review climate science processes. Good works will get published regardless of the source, heck, sometimes bad works occasionaly get published, the peer review process isn't perfect, after all.

4) I can't compile the source code or the raw data doesn't match the source code because we Denialers are mostly a bunch climate science n00bs. Climate scientists: Create your own source code, we aren't here just to serve you, after all we have real research work to do.

5) GOTO1

So basicaly you ask, and you ask, and you ask, ..., ad infinitum, ad nauseam. No amount of assistance or transparancy will never be enough for the Denialers, in that sense Denialers are exactly like Birthers, they'll never be satisfied, no matter the amount of factual information given to them.

Once again, who comes up with these stupid terms? "Denialers? Birthers?" Must be the "Labelers" (At least mine is a real word.. )
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #373 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So, let me get this straight:
  • Pro-AGW scientists are not motivated by self-interest and are immune to corruption.
  • Anti-AGW people, from all walks of life, are motivated by self-interest. They are also ignorant.
  • We can ignore all evidence that calls AGW into question.
  • We can ignore that the Earth is actually not warming.
  • We can ignore thousands of e-mails showing that scientists are, in fact, suceptible to self-interest and corruption.
  • We can pretend that the IPCC is not a political organization.
Hands, here is the truth:
  • Thousands of scientists dispute the theory of AGW.
  • The Earth is cooling, and has been much warmer even within the past 500 years than it is now.
  • There is no evidence showing that CO2 levels are tied to global temperature.
  • Some of the warmest periods in Earth history took place long before industrial revolution.
  • Man contributes about 3% of the world's greenhouse gases.
  • Even a 50% reduction in emissions would not mitigate "global warming," if it existed.
Now, here is an opinion: The biggest question about the issue is "why would there be a global warming conspiracy to begin with?" The answer is clear: It's a grand scheme to redistribute wealth on an international/global level. It is the ultimate socialist experiment, one primarily targeted at the United States. The UN has never been known to be pro-America, and this is no exception. These are the same people that let Libya run the Human Rights Council. They're not exactly in our corner. What better way to punish America for excesses than to limit the scope of its economy. Meanwhile, new green taxes will flow to those nations seeking "economic and social justice." Of course, there are true believers, who also happen to be giant hypocrites (see: Al Gore). If these Green Crusaders really thought we were destroying the planet and that their predictions of catastrophe would come true, why would they fly around in 30 year old, inefficient private jets? Is it that they don't believe it, or that they don't care? Perhaps they just think they are special.

Finally, I do find it amusing reading through the thread, watching all the Doomsdayers defend, dismiss and ignore the clear evidence of fraud recently discovered.

Where did you cut and paste this trash talk anyway?

You don't even understand the basice of the actual factual climate science. Never have. Never will.

Just this one smackdown is all that is needed to see that you lack the necessary critical thinking skills;

Quote:
Man contributes about 3% of the world's greenhouse gases.

How much of that 3% do you suppose stays and accumulates in the Earth's atmosphere annually?

HINT: It's not a small number.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #374 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Once again, who comes up with these stupid terms? "Denialers? Birthers?" Must be the "Labelers" (At least mine is a real word.. )

Who cares about the labels, do you even vaguely understand what I'm trying to say to you above.

Insistent never ending questioning of the minutiae of the actual factual climate science.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #375 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

[Citation Required]

Ditto.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #376 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Guess what, ladies and gents, we don't argue about the distance between the Earth and the Sun, or acceleration due to gravity at sea level.

There's a reason for that.

Now you're just repeating yourself.

Why?

As it was fully rebutted the first time you stated some such. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #377 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Now you're just repeating yourself.

OMG! The fucking Irony-Meter just broke.
post #378 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

And Lo, and Behold -- Heretic Lindzen has a piece in today's WSJ:



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...917025400.html

Not another WSJ and Richard S. Lindzen op-ed piece, there must be dozens of these by now.

Same as it ever was.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #379 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Fascinating read by somone who knows more about these "scientists" and climate research than even franksargent (I know, it's difficult to comprehend anyone knowing more about anything than franksargent):

The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #380 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

OMG! The fucking Irony-Meter just broke.

Your IM does not exist, or was broken from the get go.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #381 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

SHOCKER: Reseachers apply for research grants, and there is research money to be had.

STUNNING!

Like $22.6M went directly into Jones bank account. Right?

Care to even open the Excel file and note the multiple PI's and others (not named) that would naturally be supported with this research money?

Care to give this research grant money received over ~19 years some proper context?

Don't think so!(

No content. No comment.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #382 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Fascinating read by somone who knows more about these "scientists" and climate research than even franksargent (I know, it's difficult to comprehend anyone knowing more about anything than franksargent):

The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate

Another extrene-bias-with-intent op-ed hit piece?

Canada Free Press

Quote:
Canada Free Press (CFP) is a conservative Canadian website, which publishes news stories, features, and editorials.

Timothy F. Ball

Quote:
Timothy Francis Ball is an Emeritus Professor and global warming skeptic. He heads the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and is the former head of Friends of Science, an organization skeptical of human-caused global warming.

Natural Resources Stewardship Project

Quote:
The NRSP has been criticised on the basis that it is an industry-funded body which presents itself as a grassroots organization, an activity referred as Astroturfing. Harris rejected this criticism but refused to reveal the sources of NRSP funding.

Friends of Science

Quote:
Friends of Science has produced a 23 minute on-line video that claims to contrast the views of politicians and scientists on the question of climate change. The scientists on the video included consultant Tim Ball, Professor of Geology Tim Patterson of Carleton University, and Professor of Political Science Barry F. Cooper of the University of Calgary, all of whom are known for skepticism with regard to the mainstream scientific view on global warming. Scientists representing the mainstream view were not represented.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #383 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

No content. No comment.

BULLSHIT!

Same as it ever was.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #384 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I think these guys at CRU can now stop calling themselves scientists. THEY THREW OUT THE RAW DATA FOR 150 YEARS OF TEMPERATURE READINGS! Some of the most important data they can collect and they threw it away?


Climate change data dumped



Easily the most important data they could collect in their careers and they tossed it. If they tossed in the trash that tells me they thought the data was garbage.

Broken record. This has already been posted.

But here's the actual press release directly from the source again;

Quote:
CRU climate data already over 95% available (28 November)

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 Universitys Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.

The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements. Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.

The procedure for releasing these data, which are mainly owned by National Meteorological Services (NMSs) around the globe, is by direct contact between the permanent representatives of NMSs (in the UK the Met Office).

We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data, continued Professor Davies.

The remaining data, to be published when permissions are given, generally cover areas of the world where there are fewer data collection stations.

CRUs full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), concluded Professor Davies.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #385 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Who cares about the labels, do you even vaguely understand what I'm trying to say to you above.

Insistent never ending questioning of the minutiae of the actual factual climate science.

I'm sorry, I stopped caring what you had to say a while ago when you showed that civil discourse takes a backseat to your own personal amusement and positions. \ When you are ready to talk to people and not at them perhaps I will start caring again. Otherwise, carry on soldier.

This is not an ignore notice, just a give a crap notice.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #386 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Broken record. This has already been posted.

But here's the actual press release directly from the source again;

Complete with the actual link?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #387 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Oh of course it does. I work with researchers. They think all their old data is gold. Even when they don't remember how it was collected and the details of the measurements. Seems like the university has conflicting statements.

Major blunder.

Wrong again, none of the original meteorological data has been "destroyed".

It's where it's always been from the get go, go back through this thread, this has already been fully discussed and refutted.

This thread is really starting to sound like a broken record, as things are repeated over and over again, exclusively from the Denialers side of the fence, I might add.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #388 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Complete with the actual link?

Novice?

Don't believe it?

This is truly slow and boring.

CRU climate data already over 95% available (28 November)
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #389 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Another extrene-bias-with-intent op-ed hit piece?

Canada Free Press



Timothy F. Ball



Natural Resources Stewardship Project



Friends of Science

@ your incessant use of Wikipedia

Oooooh, Dr. Ball is a AGW "skeptic", therefore his opinion, insight, and experience is immediately disregarded.

I doubt you even read the article.

How very scientific of you.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #390 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I'm sorry, I stopped caring what you had to say a while ago when you showed that civil discourse takes a backseat to your own personal amusement and positions. \ When you are ready to talk to people and not at them perhaps I will start caring again. Otherwise, carry on soldier.

This is not an ignore notice, just a give a crap notice.

So you don't care about the actual scientific facts of climate change.

Thanks for making that abundantly clear.

Naïveté is thy name.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #391 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

@ your incessant use of Wikipedia

Oooooh, Dr. Ball is a AGW "skeptic", therefore his opinion, insight, and experience is immediately disregarded.

I doubt you even read the article.

How very scientific of you.

How very unscientific of you and your ilk.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #392 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Novice?

Don't believe it?

This is truly slow and boring.

CRU climate data already ‘over 95%’ available (28 November)

Say there was an official investigation launched into...oh I don't know...the intelligence reports that spurred Bush's call for the invasion of Iraq.

Say Bush and all those involved issued a statement saying something to the efffect:

"We had incontrovertible proof that Saddam had WMD's and intended to use them to attack the U.S. and its allies or provide them to Al Qaeda to attack the U.S. and its allies. We have since destroyed all the information that led us to call for the invasion of Iraq, but 95% of it is still available, as the sources from which we obtained it certainly still have it. However, it cannot be released. But trust us. It's there."

Would you take them at their word?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #393 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Let's see if you can Wikipedia your way out of this one, franksargent:

NY Times: E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science

Here's an excerpt:

Quote:
Consider, for instance, the phrase that has been turned into a music video by gleeful climate skeptics: “hide the decline,” used in an e-mail message by Phil Jones, the head of the university’s Climatic Research Unit. He was discussing the preparation of a graph for the cover of a 1999 report from the World Meteorological Organization showing that temperatures in the past several decades were the highest of the past millennium.

Most of the graph was based on analyses of tree rings and other “proxy” records like ice cores and lake sediments. These indirect measurements indicated that temperatures declined in the middle of the millennium and then rose in the first half of the 20th century, which jibes with other records. But the tree-ring analyses don’t reveal a sharp warming in the late 20th century — in fact, they show a decline in temperatures, contradicting what has been directly measured with thermometers.

Because they considered that recent decline to be spurious, Dr. Jones and his colleagues removed it from part of the graph and used direct thermometer readings instead. In a statement last week, Dr. Jones said there was nothing nefarious in what they had done, because the problems with the tree-ring data had been openly identified earlier and were known to experts.

But the graph adorned the cover of a report intended for policy makers and journalists. The nonexperts wouldn’t have realized that the scariest part of that graph — the recent temperatures soaring far above anything in the previous millennium — was based on a completely different measurement from the earlier portion. It looked like one smooth, continuous line leading straight upward to certain doom.

The story behind that graph certainly didn’t show that global warming was a hoax or a fraud, as some skeptics proclaimed, but it did illustrate another of their arguments: that the evidence for global warming is not as unequivocal as many scientists claim. (Go to nytimes.com/tierneylab for details.)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #394 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Let's see if you can Wikipedia your way out of this one, franksargent:

NY Times: E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science

Here's an excerpt:

NYT...fucking right wing blog-o-smear rag!

post #395 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Novice?

Don't believe it?

This is truly slow and boring.

CRU climate data already over 95% available (28 November)

your link seems to indicate that THEY (unlike you) think it's a serious matter.

here's what the link says.

CRU Update 1 December
Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit.
post #396 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

So you don't care about the actual scientific facts of climate change.

Thanks for making that abundantly clear.

Naïveté is thy name.

No, I don't care to hear your opinions about what is going on with "climate change". I know you think they are one and the same, but I don't believe that to be true.

Nice personal attack there.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #397 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Novice?

Don't believe it?

This is truly slow and boring.

CRU climate data already over 95% available (28 November)

Don't believe you at your word, nope. Like the links to read for myself, copy and paste can be so, ummm, incomplete sometimes...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #398 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

No, I don't care to hear your pompous opinions ...
Nice personal attack there.



That's some really funny lack of self-awareness there......
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #399 of 3039
You do know that no data was destroyed, right?

They didn't have the room to store the paper. It was the '80s. So they kept the adjusted data.

Quote:
Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency.

But they dumped the data!

Quote:
The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.

But they lost 5% of the data!

Quote:
Refuting CEIs claims of data-destruction, Jones said, We havent destroyed anything. The data is still there you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.

No. They didn't. They didn't destroy any data at all.
post #400 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Fascinating read by somone who knows more about these "scientists" and climate research than even franksargent (I know, it's difficult to comprehend anyone knowing more about anything than franksargent):

The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate

You know what?

[CENTER]I actually read this POS![/CENTER]

So we have a bunch of pictures of climate scientists together at the same time.

I'm shocked I tell you, simply SHOCKED!

So this Tim Ball has been proved, via court documents, to be a bald-faced LIAR, no make that a bold-faced LIAR, no make that a barefaced LIAR, no make that a bona fide LIAR.

The decline of Tim Ball: Denier champion reduced to railing at real scientists

Quote:
When someone (University of Lethbridge Professor Dan Johnson) finally called Ball on his trumped up resume, the uber-denier launched a suit of defamation. Big mistake. The statements of defence included more devastating slander than Ball had ever previously endured. Lawyers for the Calgary Herald, for example, dismissed him as someone "viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry, rather than as a practicing scientist."

Ball abandoned his suit and went back to spreading disinformation in small prairie town service clubs.

Tim Ball vs Dan Johnson Lawsuit - Documents (three PDF files, read'em and weep)

[CENTER]Ball's Pants are surely still on fire![/CENTER]

NOTE: The Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP) is a currently defunct website.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate