mikkey 0 #1 November 23, 2009 A lot of the media keeps this scandal under a lid, but it's big and shows what many of us suspected when all doubt was refuted by "the science is settled".... BS. Have a read, and follow some of the links to read some of the stuff... amazing. And please remember that this is Hadley CRU the main contributor to the IPCC data and key reference to all those AGW believers.... Read a good summary here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #2 November 23, 2009 For a more nuanced discussion I would suggest www.realclimate.org. Like the original Watergate break-in, I suspect this will be far more interesting for who did the breaking than what was stolen. I don't think it is just a coincidence that this happens just before the Copenhagen climate conference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #3 November 23, 2009 Well the British Court's blow to Al Gore in 2007 is always something to think about. Did you hear about the new film about Al Gore's film? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/21/new-documentary-challenges-gores-inconvenient-truth-global-warming/?test=latestnews Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #4 November 23, 2009 QuoteFor a more nuanced discussion I would suggest www.realclimate.org. Like the original Watergate break-in, I suspect this will be far more interesting for who did the breaking than what was stolen. I don't think it is just a coincidence that this happens just before the Copenhagen climate conference. You have to be joking..... they like others of the AGW papal estate are trying to cover up the key issue . Key is that the emails show that data used by the IPCC was manipulated to fit the AGW theory and models!!! It also shows clearly a bias and agenda that has nothing to do with "science". Do you have any idea how many scientists and institutions will lose their income and funding if AGW does not happen???? I have always been sceptical about this theory because far too much exagerations were used based on computer models (shit in - shit out) and it always is intertwined with a religous believe of "man is destroying the planet and we have to repend..." Professor Aynsley Kellow warned about just this corruption of science by evangelism in his 2007 book "Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science. " He now writes: Quote The e-mails leaked suggest the situation was much worse than my analysis – but then I was just pointing to the degree of collaboration and the effects of the communications revolution in breaking down the normal safeguards. We now have evidence of: collective ‘dealing’ with inconvenient data; attempts to hijack peer review; the keeping of inconvenient published science out of the IPCC process; keeping that which did appear out of the important Summary for Policy-Makers; attempts to intimidate journal editors; inability to acocunt for observational data which are ‘surely wrong’ . . . . Really quite amazing stuff! And on this we will base an ETS which assumes we know (because the science is settled) what size the cap should be in a cap-and-trade scheme. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #5 November 23, 2009 Perhaps one of the people that think GW is bullshit can tell me which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas b) The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing c) Thermodynamics works Because unless one of those statements is false, GW must be true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #6 November 23, 2009 Nice impartial and credible source there: James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #7 November 23, 2009 Quote Nice impartial and credible source there: James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com That's priceless! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 197 #8 November 23, 2009 Yep. Right now there are a whole bunch of folks trying to figure out where the golden egg-laying goose got off to.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #9 November 23, 2009 The cards are fixen to fall for the whole AGW crowd. We will soon see who is reasonable, (when confronted with new information, change their mind) and who the kool aid drinkers are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #10 November 23, 2009 QuoteThe cards are fixen to fall for the whole AGW crowd. We will soon see who is reasonable, (when confronted with new information, change their mind) and who the kool aid drinkers are. Which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas b) The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing c) Thermodynamics works Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #11 November 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe cards are fixen to fall for the whole AGW crowd. We will soon see who is reasonable, (when confronted with new information, change their mind) and who the kool aid drinkers are. Which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas b) The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing c) Thermodynamics works If it were THAT simple, they wouldn't have had to 'cook the books', now would they? But while we're at it, why don't you explain how the temps have been DECREASING the last several years, given your postulates above?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #12 November 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe cards are fixen to fall for the whole AGW crowd. We will soon see who is reasonable, (when confronted with new information, change their mind) and who the kool aid drinkers are. Which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas b) The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing c) Thermodynamics works Gulp gulp gulp Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #13 November 23, 2009 QuoteIf it were THAT simple, they wouldn't have had to 'cook the books', now would they? At its very core, AGW is that simple. What happens to the temperature of a system when you apply heat and reduce the ability for that system to radiate heat away? QuoteBut while we're at it, why don't you explain how the temps have been DECREASING the last several years, given your postulates above? Chaotic weather patterns and heat sinks, variable driving sources, feedback loops, limited data sets. But underlying all of those complications are three known and indisputable facts. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing and the laws of Thermodynamics work. The undeniable conclusion is global warming. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #14 November 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe cards are fixen to fall for the whole AGW crowd. We will soon see who is reasonable, (when confronted with new information, change their mind) and who the kool aid drinkers are. Which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas b) The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing c) Thermodynamics works Gulp gulp gulp Put down the Kool Aid and tell me which one is false. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #15 November 23, 2009 QuotePerhaps one of the people that think GW is bullshit can tell me which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas b) The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing c) Thermodynamics works d)the world average temps have not risen in 10 years and they admit can not explain it Because unless one of those statements is false, GW must be true or not??. There, fixed it for you"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #16 November 23, 2009 QuoteQuotePerhaps one of the people that think GW is bullshit can tell me which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas b) The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing c) Thermodynamics works (the world average temps have not risen in 10 years and they admit can not explain it) Because unless one of those statements is false, GW must be true. There, fixed it for you So which one is false? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #17 November 23, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Perhaps one of the people that think GW is bullshit can tell me which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas b) The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing c) Thermodynamics works (the world average temps have not risen in 10 years and they admit can not explain it) Because unless one of those statements is false, GW must be true. There, fixed it for you So which one is false? So (excuse me) making a question with a false premise simple, makes it a done deal for you??Ok"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #18 November 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf it were THAT simple, they wouldn't have had to 'cook the books', now would they? At its very core, AGW is that simple. What happens to the temperature of a system when you apply heat and reduce the ability for that system to radiate heat away? QuoteBut while we're at it, why don't you explain how the temps have been DECREASING the last several years, given your postulates above? Chaotic weather patterns and heat sinks, variable driving sources, feedback loops, limited data sets. But underlying all of those complications are three known and indisputable facts. CO2 is a greenhouse gasadmittedly of little consequence, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing and the laws of Thermodynamics work.Yes, when all things are considered it can have predictable results The undeniable conclusion is global warming.No, not really"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dewhast 0 #19 November 23, 2009 Coming from someone with an actual understanding of thermodynamics. "As for the influence of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas: on a normal day the atmosphere contains 10,000 ppm (parts per million) of water vapor and about 300 ppm of carbon dioxide. The government-paid scientists say that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 over the next 50 years will result in a catastrophic warming. The thermal absorptivity of water vapor is 4 times larger than that of carbon dioxide; it follows that the CO2 increase will increase the overall thermal absorptivity of the mixture by about 1/4 of one percent."; -- Marc Jeric MS and PhD degrees from UCLA, with majors in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer Is there global climate change? Maybe, it is really starting to seem less likely. Why not be responsible anyway? Exactly, why try and close discussion and dump all your money and time into one topic that will only make 0.25% of a difference over the next 50 years? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #20 November 23, 2009 QuoteThe undeniable conclusion is global warming. Of COURSE it is... which is why HADCRUT3 and tropo satellite readings have all been DECREASING since 2001. Which is why there's comments like this in the data pulled from CRU: " Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures " Looks like a few more "inconvenient truths" for the GW crowd...and the reason WHY it was originally called "man-made global warming" - the men behind it are now being exposed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 122 #21 November 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotePerhaps one of the people that think GW is bullshit can tell me which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas b) The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing c) Thermodynamics works (the world average temps have not risen in 10 years and they admit can not explain it) Because unless one of those statements is false, GW must be true. There, fixed it for you So which one is false? your presumption that one of these must be false for GW to not be happening is false, therefore the whole line of logic is falseGive one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #22 November 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotePerhaps one of the people that think GW is bullshit can tell me which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas b) The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing c) Thermodynamics works (the world average temps have not risen in 10 years and they admit can not explain it) Because unless one of those statements is false, GW must be true. There, fixed it for you So which one is false? your presumption that one of these must be false for GW to not be happening is false, therefore the whole line of logic is false Find one system that you can prove does not behave like this and you will have disproved thermodynamics, and I can virtually guarantee that you will win the Nobel prize for physics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #23 November 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotePerhaps one of the people that think GW is bullshit can tell me which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas b) The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing c) Thermodynamics works (the world average temps have not risen in 10 years and they admit can not explain it) Because unless one of those statements is false, GW must be true. There, fixed it for you So which one is false? your presumption that one of these must be false for GW to not be happening is false, therefore the whole line of logic is false Find one system that you can prove does not behave like this and you will have disproved thermodynamics, and I can virtually guarantee that you will win the Nobel prize for physics. In a (your) simple world of this (your) post of course you are correct. BUT, when you leave out variables (some of which may/are not even known yet) you have no idea what you are getting or even why!!!. You may want it to be simple but, it is not. And the emails posted (stolen) prove that to be the case"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 November 23, 2009 doubletapMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #25 November 23, 2009 QuoteFind one system that you can prove does not behave like this and you will have disproved thermodynamics, and I can virtually guarantee that you will win the Nobel prize for physics. How about the one we live in now, with HADCRUT and the tropo satellites all trending downward the last several years? I guess Mother Nature should've gotten the Nobel instead of the Goreacle®.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
