View Full Version : So, is this global warming/climate change/al gore BS over with now?
parishioner
11-29-09, 14:12
I saw something about secret emails regarding this but other than that have heard nothing else. Whats going on?
What I really enjoyed in the Fox News article online is that the NY Times won't publish any of these private emails. They have published classified government documents, tho.
The scientists have been exposed as manipulating the data to support their conclusion. It's the antithesis of science and exactly what they accuse the public of doing on most subjects.
The "eunuchs" were caught in the harem. Their status will soon be assured - but damage control and spin are the order of the day.
K.L. Davis
11-29-09, 15:41
I have taken the time to read very few of the emails and docs; however, of what I have read, some do seem pretty damning.
Did the correlation of recorded data between fluctuations in the suns activity and the earths temperature not get most of these fools thinking?
Yet again, if someones making a buck off it...
I rarely watch TV news. Is this getting any play? Can't go anywhere on the internet without reading about it.
Dead as a doornail.
Just watching a 2007 documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle. It's definitely worth a look at it on youtube if you haven't seen it.
Might help explain why no one would dare question climate change.
ooooooffff course. Potentially one of the largest scandals in human history simply overlooked.
Make no mistake: If Van Jones could be exposed, this while simultaneously being so blatantly ignored by the MSM, well then anything is possible at this point. And I mean anything.
Prepare to be even further disappointed.
Anyone have links to the mentioned "letters"?
decodeddiesel
11-29-09, 19:50
I heard about it from Michael Savage on the radio. Though his show is often over the top and difficult to stomach I did appreciate his commentary on the matter given his PhD in a scientific field.
Although this will be rebuked by the liberal media conspiracy I hope this spells the end of the global warming scandal.
No. Now it's climate change or climate chaos. Or climate bullshit of the day if you like.
I just tell everyone I can about it since the media is unwilling to do it's job, except for Fox News and talk radio that is, but most of the masses don't believe it if it's not in the "main stream" media.
This should have been the nails in the coffin of the anthropogenic global warming lies. Unfortunately, I doubt if it will even be a footnote in history books and it's certainly not going to stop the lies, propaganda, and deceipt. Too many people with too much power and too much money and too much ego on the line have too much too lose if the real truth became The Truth again.
The mainstream media isn't reporting it. Most people will never hear about it. They've already been indoctrinated by repetition that man-mad global warming is not only real and confimed, but that it's absolutely going to have catastrophic consequences. All three of those are bold-faced lies, but if you repeat something enough and all of the players are in it together, eventually it becomes "the truth."
Disclosure of the emails admitting to the fraud is just a blip on the cultural radar. No one will remember this in two weeks.
I truly, truly hope I am wrong, but I'm not going to hold my breath. And heck, if I held my breath, I wouldn't be doing my part to kill the planet with my evil carbon dioxide-riddled exhaust.
I dream of a world when those perpetrating this shameful lie will be truly exposed and more importantly held accountable for their actions. This is probably the biggest fraud both in terms of number of collaborators as well as impact on society in the history of science. Ironically, if they are exposed someday, it will probably hurt legitimate scientists and engineers who work and act with integrity the most, since then all will be painted with same brush of liar.
kaiservontexas
11-30-09, 00:41
Nope, the O machine is still planning on signing at Copenhagen.
dmancornell
11-30-09, 01:40
For the techies around here, the code is more damning than the emails. I'm not a statistician, having only taken the prerequisite courses for an electrical engineering major. But from what I can see, CRU fabricated the "hockey stick model" out of thin air. That's important because all the IPCC reports rely heavily on that theory.
Moreover, looking at the README file (http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt), it seems like the CRU programmers are told the "proper" conclusions and instructed to massage the data until it matches the conclusions. Numerous comments complain about how none of the calibrated data makes any sense. Which is disturbing because the original data was conveniently "lost" and nobody will ever know how much the calibrated deviates from the original. Not to mention CRU has never explained why/how the data was "calibrated" in the first place, seems kind of important.
In any case, the lame MSM has really given this story a pass. As an engineer who writes a lot of code, I think the code constitutes fraud. Which makes anthropogenic global warming the biggest scam in history.
Some funny code snippets and comments:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20TheDevilsKitchen%20%28The%20Devil%27s%20Kitchen%29
Belmont31R
11-30-09, 02:28
Global warming/climate change is a religion to these people.
Dont think a couple emails leaked out is going to change anything for them.
Too much people to try and "convince", too much money to be made, too much power and control to be had so long as the great myth is kept alive.
Its not going to go down this easy.
decodeddiesel
11-30-09, 09:23
Well look at evolution. It is Darwin's theory yet it is preached as gospel; and if you don't believe it then you are "uneducated" or "religious and delusional." :rolleyes:
The difference between evolution and human caused global warming is that currently there is overwhelming scientific evidence supporting Darwin's theory of evolution, and nothing to support the global warming theory.
Now, am I saying Darwin's theory is bullet proof? No, no true scientific theory is. The definition of a scientific theory is that it can be proven wrong with proper scientific evidence. It is a supported hypothesis which a scientist forms which is supported by the evidence gathered by scientific experimentation and observation.
There has been virtually zero irrefutable scientific evidence brought forth which refutes the theory of evolution (no the bible, nor any other religious dogma does not count as scientific). This is the reason that currently it is the accepted leading scientific theory and is taught in schools.
I think the disclaimer that it is a scientific theory is a good thing and something to always keep in mind, however for the time being evolution is the most plausible explanation which fits the scientific facts.
Conversely there are volumes of scientific evidence against global warming, and nothing but flim flam garbage to support it. These hacked e-mails are the damning proof that all of the evidence was fabricated.
It's inconceivable that untermensch such as us should even doubt the word of our betters. Of course, the data had to be calibrated, it was raw. And of course, statements are taken out of context, jargon is not appreciated for it's real meaning, and global warming opponents are twisting the record to reflect a less than scientific approach to further their agenda.
You want to research cascading theories that continuously supplant the previous one, get into evolution. There's always a new grant or discovery every twenty years, quite apart from the outright fraud littering the landscape. Most anthropologists never even get to handle real bones - just plaster casts not well replicated. It's an incredibly soft science of supposition.
Unlike math, where a paper on the time line of evolution proved long ago we still couldn't have made it to the single cell stage yet.
Global warming is just the backlash of global cooling of the '80's, a competing theory manipulated for grant awards and a tool of those trying to disenfranchise the existing powers that be.
Does anyone have any good links on the info or letters? There's been nothing on the local Vegas news about this.
CharlieKilo
11-30-09, 10:44
Does anyone have any good links on the info or letters? There's been nothing on the local Vegas news about this.
http://freedomforthepeople.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/hackers-leak-emails-proving-global-warming-is-a-fraud/
Follow the link in the article to climateaudit.org
http://freedomforthepeople.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/hackers-leak-emails-proving-global-warming-is-a-fraud/
Follow the link in the article to climateaudit.org
Thanks! :cool:
a competing theory manipulated for grant awards and a tool of those trying to disenfranchise the existing powers that be.
... I think that this quote sums it up. The academics are in it for the money, fame, and ideology. The pols are looking to game the system. I don't have a doubt in my mathematical mind that people like Pelosi, Boxer, Gore et al are fully committed to making themselves the next E. du Pont or John Rockefeller or whatever, at the expense of the economy and the population of the US.
I've been following this issue closely. I know I participate in the political threads a bit too much, so I have not posted anything myself, but I am glad that SOMEBODY did. This situation needs much more coverage.
SWATcop556
11-30-09, 11:31
At least those of us without our heads shoved up our ass know that it's a huge fraud and can safely drive our nonhybrid cars with confidence. :cool:
Global Warming is here to stay. There are too many $$$$ on the line and too many egos and career and reputations attached to those $$$$.
decodeddiesel
11-30-09, 11:43
Unlike math, where a paper on the time line of evolution proved long ago we still couldn't have made it to the single cell stage yet.
Seeing how I have just finished my 6th semester of college level math (linear algebra) I would really like to read this paper. Please post the name, author, and date here, or send me a PM.
parishioner
11-30-09, 11:57
Sadly, this will be just like when we thought Rev. Wright would sink Obama.
The difference between evolution and human caused global warming is that currently there is overwhelming scientific evidence supporting Darwin's theory of evolution.
DD - I respect your opinion and enjoy reading your posts. I suggest watching this video http://www.privilegedplanet.com/. I believe you can find it on Google video and a few other places, I know Netflix carries it. I enjoyed watching it and I think you would as well, although it doesn't support Darwin's theory, I think it is thought provoking.
decodeddiesel
11-30-09, 12:12
DD - I respect your opinion and enjoy reading your posts. I suggest watching this video http://www.privilegedplanet.com/. I believe you can find it on Google video and a few other places, I know Netflix carries it. I enjoyed watching it and I think you would as well, although it doesn't support Darwin's theory, I think it is thought provoking.
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll check it out.
Does anyone have any good links on the info or letters? There's been nothing on the local Vegas news about this.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/30/climategate-the-fallout-continues-from-cru-hacking/
By Keith Johnson
So where do we stand on “climategate,” the case of the hacked emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the U.K.?
For those living in caves, or with an excessively long Thanksgiving break, the release in late November of the documents—related to more than a decade of climate-change research—has caused something of a firestorm. There’s more on all that at Climate Audit and Real Climate.
Not much news on the investigation into the hacking itself, which is being conducted by local police in the U.K. Initial reports about “Russian hackers”—the files were posted on a Russian FTP site—may well be misleading.
One avenue of investigation making the rounds now is the use of open proxies by hackers to mask their identities. Since those third-party proxies can be located anywhere, they don’t offer concrete clues into the identity of the hackers. Computer forensics could help track down their identity—or at least the Internet Protocol address where it all started.
Over the weekend, the CRU took aim at one of the issues at the heart of the spat between its researchers and independent climate scientists around the world: Access to data. The CRU reiterated that most of its climate-research data is publicly available, and that it plans to make the rest of it available when it secures permission from national meterological services which own the data and control its dissemination.
For more on the propriety of how the CRU researchers do their science, Andy Revkin at Dot Earth has a post, including some juicy input from a fellow climate researcher at East Anglia on the future of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In any event, much of the attention in recent days has focused less on the how than the what. That is, the snarky emails among climate scientists that talked about the peer-review process, blocking rivals from publishing, and the like have yielded to the rest of the documents included in the hack.
One in particular that’s drawing attention: “Harry_Read_Me,” the three-year diary of a programmer’s efforts to make sense of the CRU’s computerized databases on global temperatures. More on that here and here.
The big issue: Just how reliable is the information that is at the heart of the climate center’s conclusions about global temperature trends? The CRU, for its part, stresses 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).”
The web page has several embedded links with more information.
Also:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/global-warmists-exposed/
I'm in the minority, but I'm not yet ready to discredit global warming. All the crap we spew out into the environment has to be having some sort of negative impact, but I don't know the extent of the damage, if any. My mom does contracting nurse work and for the last 6 years or so has been working at a rural hospital in Alaska that services a small tribe. Her stories and photographs of the changes in that region suggest there's definitely something going on, and not in a good way, with the environment out there.
I'm in the minority, but I'm not yet ready to discredit global warming. All the crap we spew out into the environment has to be having some sort of negative impact, but I don't know the extent of the damage, if any. My mom does contracting nurse work and for the last 6 years or so has been working at a rural hospital in Alaska that services a small tribe. Her stories and photographs of the changes in that region suggest there's definitely something going on, and not in a good way, with the environment out there.
There is no doubt that we are having an impact on the environment. The reason why debunking the false claims of global warming is so important is that we need to distinguish between what is environmentally responsible and what is politically motivated false science.
Certain environmental issues are real for example: smog. Smog is a real problem here in Utah. Inversion in the valley tends to trap smog and on those days when it is really bad; exercise outside is not good. But this is a local problem, something that our local governments need to deal with (and for the most part we have found solutions such as public warnings when the air is particularly bad and a recently much improved public transit system). We don't need the Federal government and we especially don't need international agreements to tell us how to deal with our problems.
The global warming conspirators are trying to gain personal advantages (influence in politics or money) by creating a problem where none exists. Rejecting global warming does not mean that we reject man being part of an interlocking resource relationship with the rest of the environment. We are simply trying to un-cloud the waters that are constantly being stirred up.
Many scientists say that increases in carbon dioxide are a GOOD thing because as the world population grows more CO2 is important for more plant growth that will be necessary to feed everyone.
http://petitionproject.com/
I'm in the minority, but I'm not yet ready to discredit global warming. All the crap we spew out into the environment has to be having some sort of negative impact, but I don't know the extent of the damage, if any. My mom does contracting nurse work and for the last 6 years or so has been working at a rural hospital in Alaska that services a small tribe. Her stories and photographs of the changes in that region suggest there's definitely something going on, and not in a good way, with the environment out there.
This may be true, but there are some questions to consider. First, are we causing this? Is the change in climate a distinct warming trend, or is it simply "changing"? Is that change universally bad/unwelcome in all areas? And how do these changes, if they are happening at all, fit in with the history of earth's climate? It is my understaning that over most of the time in the past, the earth has had no ice pack at the north pole at all, for instance.
My frustration with the alarmists is that these questions seem to be ignored more often than not.:(
Well look at evolution. It is Darwin's theory yet it is preached as gospel; and if you don't believe it then you are "uneducated" or "religious and delusional." :rolleyes:
Darwin came up with natural selection, the mechanism for evolution. Evolution as a theory was around before Darwin set off on the HMS Beagle.
Just a theory though, like gravity.
This may be true, but there are some questions to consider. First, are we causing this? Is the change in climate a distinct warming trend, or is it simply "changing"? Is that change universally bad/unwelcome in all areas? And how do these changes, if they are happening at all, fit in with the history of earth's climate? It is my understaning that over most of the time in the past, the earth has had no ice pack at the north pole at all, for instance.
My frustration with the alarmists is that these questions seem to be ignored more often than not.:(
There was an ice age 12,000 years ago. The midwest was covered by a mile high glacier. It carved the great plains flat and pushed the land into the foothills of the middle southern states. When it melted, it created the Great Lakes.
The earth has gotten warmer since then. This is a completely natural process. It will get cooler again after some thousands of more years and the cycle will repeat - again and again. It's all about the sun, and the earth's orbit.
Do you really think the last 150 years of post industrial revolution influence by man has anything but the slightest effect on this?
Absolute agreement on all counts.
The existence of those comments leads me to believe that the people who wrote the code intended someday for the "clues" to be discovered. If so, good on them. I wish they'd come forward earlier and more obviously, but leaving breadcrumbs of that size could really help expose the overal pack of lies.
If I'd done similar things with my data in grad school, not only would I not have graduated, but everyone would have known about why I got kicked out of school. It's lying and it's fraud. There is no other way to describe it. It's shocking to me that this level and fraud has remained below the radar as long as it has. It may continue there, but I hope not.
For the techies around here, the code is more damning than the emails. I'm not a statistician, having only taken the prerequisite courses for an electrical engineering major. But from what I can see, CRU fabricated the "hockey stick model" out of thin air. That's important because all the IPCC reports rely heavily on that theory.
Moreover, looking at the README file (http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt), it seems like the CRU programmers are told the "proper" conclusions and instructed to massage the data until it matches the conclusions. Numerous comments complain about how none of the calibrated data makes any sense. Which is disturbing because the original data was conveniently "lost" and nobody will ever know how much the calibrated deviates from the original. Not to mention CRU has never explained why/how the data was "calibrated" in the first place, seems kind of important.
In any case, the lame MSM has really given this story a pass. As an engineer who writes a lot of code, I think the code constitutes fraud. Which makes anthropogenic global warming the biggest scam in history.
Some funny code snippets and comments:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20TheDevilsKitchen%20%28The%20Devil%27s%20Kitchen%29
The difference between evolution and human caused global warming is that currently there is overwhelming scientific evidence supporting Darwin's theory of evolution, and nothing to support the global warming theory.
That's an excellent point and I'd add that Darwin's theories are legitimately theories because of that evidence.
Man-made global warming, on the other hand, does not even come close to that level. At best, it's a hypothesis that is not supported by the evidence. I suppose the null hypothesis would be that climate change is not caused by man-made sources. The hypothesis that global climate changes are a result of human activity is an interesting idea, but there is NO EVIDENCE to support it, and evidence we do have is to the contrary.
This doesn't take a PhD to see through it, but it's hard for even highly educated people and/or critical thinkers to wade through the relentless and uniform party line on this nonsense.
I'm also concerned that the hordes of people who bought into this without checking the facts BUT WHO SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER will be emotionally unable to recant and take responsibility for being downright stupid. A lot of them have PhDs after their names, and not only do they owe all of us an apology, they need to reassess their own BS meters. The leadership of the American Physical Society all fall into this category. I just hope that integrity will somehow win over ego, but I'm not optimistic about that either.
There was an ice age 12,000 years ago. The midwest was covered by a mile high glacier. It carved the great plains flat and pushed the land into the foothills of the middle southern states. When it melted, it created the Great Lakes.
Yep
The earth has gotten warmer since then. This is a completely natural process. It will get cooler again after some thousands of more years and the cycle will repeat - again and again. It's all about the sun, and the earth's orbit.
Got it.
Do you really think the last 150 years of post industrial revolution influence by man has anything but the slightest effect on this?
Can you rephrase the question?
msgs too short
I'm inspired . . . I want a t-shirt that says, "It's the Sun, stupid."
The Sun dominates, yet the models that lead to the conclusion that it's people driving SUVs and burning coal conveniently omit or at least minimize the effects of the sun in their black box.
There was an ice age 12,000 years ago. The midwest was covered by a mile high glacier. It carved the great plains flat and pushed the land into the foothills of the middle southern states. When it melted, it created the Great Lakes.
The earth has gotten warmer since then. This is a completely natural process. It will get cooler again after some thousands of more years and the cycle will repeat - again and again. It's all about the sun, and the earth's orbit.
Do you really think the last 150 years of post industrial revolution influence by man has anything but the slightest effect on this?
And how much money/ mileage has Al Gore recieved from this farce?
The Site Accuweather.com has been on this for quite some time. Here is a link to a short video by Joe Bastardi [meteoroligist] on GW in relation to the wildfires in Ca.
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=37129475001&channel=VBLOG_BASTARDI&title=Debunking%20Global%20Warming%20%20in%20California's%20Wildfires
parishioner
12-07-09, 07:47
Biggest piece of sensationalized garbage I've ever read not to mention flat out lies. The ending is so asinine it makes me want to vomit.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/decade_s_end_climate
Decade of 2000s was warmest ever, scientists say
AP
By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent Charles J. Hanley, Ap Special Correspondent – 1 hr 25 mins ago
It dawned with the warmest winter on record in the United States. And when the sun sets this New Year's Eve, the decade of the 2000s will end as the warmest ever on global temperature charts.
Warmer still, scientists say, lies ahead.
Through 10 years of global boom and bust, of breakneck change around the planet, of terrorism, war and division, all people everywhere under that warming sun faced one threat together: the buildup of greenhouse gases, the rise in temperatures, the danger of a shifting climate, of drought, weather extremes and encroaching seas, of untold damage to the world humanity has created for itself over millennia.
As the decade neared its close, the U.N. gathered presidents and premiers of almost 100 nations for a "climate summit" to take united action, to sharply cut back the burning of coal and other fossil fuels.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told them they had "a powerful opportunity to get on the right side of history" at a year-ending climate conference in Copenhagen.
Once again, however, disunity might keep the world's nations on this side of making historic decisions.
"Deep down, we know that you are not really listening," the Maldives' Mohamed Nasheed told fellow presidents at September's summit.
Nasheed's tiny homeland, a sprinkling of low-lying islands in the Indian Ocean, will be one of the earliest victims of seas rising from heat expansion and melting glaciers. On remote islets of Papua New Guinea, on Pacific atolls, on bleak Arctic shores, other coastal peoples in the 2000s were already making plans, packing up, seeking shelter.
The warming seas were growing more acid, too, from absorbing carbon dioxide, the biggest greenhouse gas in an overloaded atmosphere(BOLD FACED LIE, water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas. Come on AP, we learned this in 7th grade!) . Together, warmer waters and acidity will kill coral reefs and imperil other marine life — from plankton at the bottom of the food chain, to starfish and crabs, mussels and sea urchins.
Over the decade's first nine years, global temperatures averaged 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees F) higher than the 1951-1980 average, NASA reported. And temperatures rose faster in the far north than anyplace else on Earth.
The decade's final three summers melted Arctic sea ice more than ever before in modern times. Greenland's gargantuan ice cap was pouring 3 percent more meltwater into the sea each year. Every summer's thaw reached deeper into the Arctic permafrost, threatening to unlock vast amounts of methane, a global-warming gas.
Less ice meant less sunlight reflected, more heat absorbed by the Earth. More methane escaping the tundra meant more warming, more thawing, more methane released.
At the bottom of the world, late in the decade, International Polar Year research found that Antarctica, too, was warming. Floating ice shelves fringing its coast weakened, some breaking away, allowing the glaciers behind them to push ice faster into the rising oceans.
On six continents the glaciers retreated through the 2000s, shrinking future water sources for countless millions of Indians, Chinese, South Americans. The great lakes of Africa were shrinking, too, from higher temperatures, evaporation and drought. Across the temperate zones, flowers bloomed earlier, lakes froze later, bark beetles bored their destructive way northward through warmer forests. In the Arctic, surprised Eskimos spotted the red breasts of southern robins.
In the 2000s, all this was happening faster than anticipated, scientists said. So were other things: By late in the decade, global emissions of carbon dioxide matched the worst case among seven scenarios laid down in 2001 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. scientific network formed to peer into climate's future. Almost 29 billion tons of the gas poured skyward annually — 23 percent higher than at the decade's start.
By year-end 2008, the 2000s already included eight of the 10 warmest years on record. By 2060, that trajectory could push temperatures a dangerous 4 degrees C (7 degrees F) or more higher than preindustrial levels, British scientists said.(Probably the ones that cherry picked the data in the climategate scandal)
Early in the decade, the president of the United States, the biggest emitter, blamed "incomplete" science for the U.S. stand against rolling back emissions, as other industrial nations were trying to do. As the decade wore on and emissions grew, American reasoning leaned more toward the economic.
By 2009, with a new president and Congress, Washington seemed ready to talk. But in the front ranks of climate research — where they scale the glaciers, drill into ocean sediments, monitor a changing Earth through a web of satellite eyes — scientists feared they were running out of time.
Before the turn of the last century, with slide rule, pencil and months of tedious calculation, Svante Arrhenius was the first to show that carbon dioxide would warm the planet — in 3,000 years. The brilliant Swede hadn't foreseen the 20th-century explosion in use of fossil fuels.
Today their supercomputers tell his scientific heirs a much more urgent story: To halt and reverse that explosion of emissions, to head off a planetary climate crisis, the 10 years that dawn this Jan. 1 will be the fateful years, the final chance, the last decade.
They should try to make their agenda less clear in that last paragraph. :rolleyes:
This has gone to far and is now ingrained in the skulls of the commoner. Reversal of the belief in global warming is a long stretch.
Once cap and trade passes the jobs in the U.S. will begin to disappear and the bill requires developed nations to give away 3% of their gross domestic product to third world countries, ( sounds like a Carl Marx idea there ). Everything our forefathers built will be given away untill America resembles a third world country. Now that we know global warming is a big lie matters not to these people, it is a means to an end.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf
A review of the author's background shows that he does have his detractors. Most of them seem to be firmly in the man-made warming camp, though, so that might actually speak well of him.:D
I've read much of it (it's a pdf of about 27 pages, be warned) and based on mu understanding of the issue, he makes some good points. At the very least, he highlights some serious unanswered questions.
-apologies to Gutshot John for not copying the content into a forum post.
So says the AP.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails
They've reviewed the stolen e-mails and determined that although things weren't done so right, the science is real.
Yep, we're to blame.
So, all you deniers you're bad.
Y'all probably a bunch of hicks.
So deal with it.
All praise Al Gore!
Yep, gotta deal with it.
That's how it'll be spun anyway.
Suppose the lame-stream media will pick up on the story now?
You know, "BREAKING NEWS!!! Fox News was BSing their idiots into believing that the global warming people made it up, but the AP proves them wrong. Al Gore deserves another Peace Prize!"
parishioner
12-13-09, 15:34
So says the AP.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails
They've reviewed the stolen e-mails and determined that although things weren't done so right, the science is real.
Yep, we're to blame.
So, all you deniers you're bad.
Y'all probably a bunch of hicks.
So deal with it.
All praise Al Gore!
Yep, gotta deal with it.
That's how it'll be spun anyway.
Suppose the lame-stream media will pick up on the story now?
You know, "BREAKING NEWS!!! Fox News was BSing their idiots into believing that the global warming people made it up, but the AP proves them wrong. Al Gore deserves another Peace Prize!"
Well Thank You AP. I was patiently awaiting your "exhaustive review" since you are the authority on everything and represent the highest standard in journalism. I trust you. :rolleyes:
dmancornell
12-13-09, 17:18
So says the AP.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails
They've reviewed the stolen e-mails and determined that although things weren't done so right, the science is real.
Yep, we're to blame.
So, all you deniers you're bad.
Y'all probably a bunch of hicks.
So deal with it.
All praise Al Gore!
Yep, gotta deal with it.
That's how it'll be spun anyway.
Suppose the lame-stream media will pick up on the story now?
You know, "BREAKING NEWS!!! Fox News was BSing their idiots into believing that the global warming people made it up, but the AP proves them wrong. Al Gore deserves another Peace Prize!"
An exhaustive review that did not even look at the source code. AP can ESAD.
An exhaustive review that did not even look at the source code. AP can ESAD.
So true. Even now, some 6-8 weeks after this started breaking, I don't think the code has been made fully transparent. But don't worry, all is well. The science is sound. Sheesh! They even trotted out ol' Dr. Hansen -on Letterman of all things- last week!:rolleyes:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.