ZERO evidence of Conspiracy by CC Scientists in Hacked emails
Sean
Here are a couple of example websites that tell an interesting story one
after the other ...... which again shows how quickly any "info", no matter
how little is really known about it, no matter how much is spun about it,
immediately raises to the status of absolute Truth ... without an ounce of
real intelligent evaluation or insight about what this "info" really is.
Sean
========================
The WSJ started it, so let's start there .........
Settled Science?
Computer hackers reveal corruption behind the global-warming "consensus."
"Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on
Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the
police had been brought in to investigate the breach," the New York Times
reports. "They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the
material circulating on the Internet was authentic." But some scientists
have confirmed that their emails were quoted accurately.
The files--which can be downloaded here--surely have not been fully plumbed.
The ZIP archive weighs in at just under 62 megabytes, or more than 157 MB
when uncompressed. But bits that have already been analyzed, as the
Washington Post reports, "reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel
very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies":
In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania
State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of
academics that question the link between human activities and global warming
deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the
global consensus view on climate science.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones
writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine
what the peer-review literature is!"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574552533758682774.html
Climategate Peer Review: Science red in tooth and claw
I am a scientist and I have lived around fellow scientists for many years
and I know their feeding habits well. I therefore know that the members of
our secular priesthood are ordinary folk. But civilians were blind to this
fact because our public relations department has labored hard to tell the
world of our sanctity. "Scientists use peer review which is scientific and
allows ex cathedra utterances. Amen."
But the CRU "climategate" emails have revealed the truth that scientists
are just people and that peer review is saturated with favoritism, and this
has shocked many civilians. It has shaken their faith and left them
sputtering. They awoke to the horrible truth: Scientists are just people!
Now all the world can see that scientists, like their civilians brothers,
are nasty, brutish, and short-tempered. They are prejudiced, spiteful, and
just downright unfriendly. They are catty, vindictive, scornful,
manipulative, narrow-minded, and nearly incapable of admitting to a mistake.
And they are cliquey.
Thus, we see that the CRU crew define a "good scientist" as one who agrees
with them, a "bad scientist" or "no scientist" as one who does not agree
with them, and a "mediocre scientist" as somebody who mostly agrees with
them. Further, these judgments are carried to the peer-review process.
Proving bad behavior [about peer review] is very difficult. If you think
that [Geophysical Research Letterseditor] Saiers is in the greenhouse
skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could
go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.1
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1355
[[ SEAN : which is of course JUST another JUDGEMENT not based on the facts
that actually surrounded these emails and the reasons behind was scientist A
was saying about Scientist B, and there is absolutely no understanding by
this blogger about the specific science/data issues being discussed in these
THOUSANDS of Emails ... but God forbid, who wants to read them OR speak
directly with any of the authors as why they say what they say IN CONTEXT ]
Leaked email climate smear was a PR disaster for UEA
There was no evidence of conspiracy among climate scientists in the leaked
emails - so why was the University of East Anglia's response so pathetic?
The lay public, when presented with confusing data and competing arguments
about climate change, deploy the mental shortcut of believing the people
they most trust. Trust in the communicator is therefore crucial.
Unfortunately the three main climate change communicators: politicians,
journalists and environmental campaigners, are among the least trusted
people in society - fighting it out for bottom place in the ranking with
lawyers and car salesmen. No one would pay any attention to them at all if
they were not drawing on the aquifer of public trust in scientists.
But climate scientists have always misunderstood the dynamic of public
belief and trust. They assume that belief will be built on their data and
that public trust is merited by their authority. With the exception of a few
outstanding communicators, they often make no attempt to speak to deeper
values or make an emotional connection with the public - indeed they see
that as contrary to their professional independence.
Climate change deniers have always understood this. They use language that
is designed to appeal to deeper values (such as freedom, independence,
progress). The narrative they tell of being determined (and even persecuted)
free-thinkers, standing against the tide of oppressive and self-interested
conformity is designed to create an aura of integrity and trustworthiness.
The recent hacking of the servers of the University of East Anglia can
only be understood within this landscape of competing appeals to public
trust. The denial industry (and hordes of climate nerds) has trawled through
these emails and found sentences which, when removed from context, support
their storyline that climate science is being deliberately distorted and
exaggerated for a mixed bag of self-interested and politicised ends.
But you could find anything in here. I looked and found lots of references
to lunch and fun, 94 to hate, 31 to love. Generally, though, the emails are
extremely focused, technical, and, dare I say it, really dull. As noted on
realclimate.org, the emails contain "no evidence of any worldwide
conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research,
no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a
hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from
our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords."
But this is hardly the point. This is an orchestrated smear campaign and
does not require balance or context. The speed with which the emails have
been cut apart and fed into existing storylines is remarkable. At the very
least the UEA email campaign is an application of dirty political tactics to
climate change campaigning.
more here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/23/leaked-email-climate-change
MORE HERE
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no
evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously
funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no
admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of
data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian
overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being
in on the plot though.
Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the
conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is
sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint
publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big
picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in 'robust'
discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of
their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it
wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research
to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-2/
This article is the BEST yet though .. because it uses humour as good as
Monty Python to throughly debunk the utter rediculousness of this latest
BEAT UP and by light-weights who couldn't pass year 8 science let alone
comprehend anythign that true core scientists actually go thru before comin
gto a reasonable and rational and HONESTLY PUT Consensus.
The Knights Carbonic
Here's the email you'd need to see to show that manmade global warming is a
scam
Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have
wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of
open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.
"From: ernst.ka...@redcar.ac.uk
Sent: 29th October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic
Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the
Master called "the ordering of men's affairs by a transcendent world state,
ordained by God and answerable to no man", which we now know as Communist
World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years
since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme
for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working
towards this moment.
The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master's
initial thesis - that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the
atmosphere - had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not
bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood
spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the
naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master's rivals. Within
35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our
revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to "demonstrate" the Master's thesis.
Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major
objections were sustained.
More resistence was encountered (and swiftly despatched) when we sought to
install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at
Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to
project the Master's second grand law - that the infrared radiation trapped
in a planet's atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon
dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior
Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and
chemical science to sustain the second law.
Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the
instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment
was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available,
and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show
a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates
had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required
unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.
The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most
regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to
sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the
lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even
though we have ensured that eight of the ten warmest years since 1850 have
occurred since 2001(10). From now on we will engineer a smoother
progression.
Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The
thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret
nuclear power stations around the Arctic Circle, attached to giant immersion
heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the
world's glaciers.
Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world's wildlife has
proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world's
biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of
farmers, gardeners, bird-watchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore
been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher
latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every
year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever
more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant
governments, is required to sustain it.
The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The
capture of George W. Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World
Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage
filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus
with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly-capitalist governments remain apprised
of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we
have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of
compliant states, the Master's third grand law has been accepted: world
government will be established under the guise of controlling manmade
emissions of greenhouse gases.
Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national
academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher
pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the
windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse's
head turned up in James Hansen's bed, appear to have staved off the
immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus?
Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you
all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and
terrify.
Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the
Temple of the Knights Carbonic."
This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that
manmade climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the
science of global warming withstands much more than that.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
====================
===
Copyright Disclaimer
This message may contain sections of copyright materials - Under Section 107
of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and
research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might
otherwise be infringing. Non-profit,
educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
Tom Sr.
> Here are a couple of example websites that tell an interesting story one
> after the other ...... which again shows how quickly any "info", no matter
> how little is really known about it, no matter how much is spun about it,
> immediately raises to the status of absolute Truth ... without an ounce of
> real intelligent evaluation or insight about what this "info" really is.
> Sean
> ========================
-----
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94
-----
Above is the link to 169 megabytes of all the emails and files that
were hacked by some of the far-right-wing. You can download 26-
megabyte FOI2009.zip from there, then unpack it. You’ll have to set up
a free account before you can download the file.
So once all of theultraconservative, anti-science, reactionary k00ks
here are done reading the material, get back to us rational people
with exact quotes, in context, with reference locations that prove
your *claims* that climate change is a fraud.
We'll be waiting!
-Tom Sr.
Sean
Repeat reply on alt.philosophy .. SORRY I have fixed the set reply ng thing
...so hopefully this will now find you Tom and Kickin ass ... PLEASE do read
you will appreciate it ... sean
"Sean" <he...@home.net> wrote in message
news:4b0c7c13$0$5423$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> Tom ..... I hear what you are saying, and i understand your reply ....
> but there's a problem here -- YOU need to read the ENTIRE email ... the
> title is a HOOK for the KOOKS .... <smile>
>
> trust me, I am on the right, NO, the correct side of this debate and
> RESPECT what the scientists have been attempting to get thru THICK HEADS
> SINCE THE 70'S.
>
> ie the Earth which supports all of humanity, is far far more important
> than any amount of $$$ and any nefarious political ideology.
>
> My personal opin agrees with all the top climate scientists -- Climate
> Change is NOT a theory but a irrefutable fact in existence in the world
> RIGHT NOW.
>
> People, and the scientists themselves to what degree of effect that GHGs
> may be having on this ... buit there IS a proven effect based upon Primary
> PHYSICS and the laws of nature.
>
> So, the debate is OVER about Climate Change to deny it is to deny anyoen
> reeading this posts is still alive. --
>
> There IS however still a debate and more info and research and analysis to
> do about HOW much that GHG emmissions vs other matters such as land
> clearing, and other as yet perhaps not yet known influences that could be
> also contributing to the global warming ..... scientists WILL disciover
> these given the chance to keep working on it -- and the second part of
> this is of course WHAT EXACTLY to do about CC now that it is HERE in
> spades ... and if doing anything about it, will minimise the effects
> already in train .... there'sa big time-lag between the effects occurring
> now and the long period of accumlated time which has finally built up to
> these effects .. and which *appear* according to the models to only goiung
> to get worse....
>
> The more these effects become undeniable even by the KOOKS and the
> fanatics, then less and less of this Conspiracy BULLSHIT will occur ...
>
> Australia is PASSING it's Emmissions trading scheme legislation tonight ..
> legislation as flawed as it is which has been delayed for almost 15 years
> now but the previous Right wing Government and bunch of illiterate
> skeptics on that side of the politics.
>
> Half the *right* now accept CC is real .... 10 years ago they were ALL
> Deniers ..
>
> the Time is NOW, imho
>
> cheers sean
> "Tom Sr." <tomswif...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d6af3c3e-2a0e-41b0...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Sean
mad a Missionary in the Amazon in the 1800's telling the natives there that
Jesus loves them and will save them from the fires of Hell .... you are
nothing but an ideologue who has lost all capacity for reason long long ago
... thankfully the days are numbered for fools like yourself .... the proof
will be in the pudding if you live long enough to finally admit that you
have always been wrong on this issue -- Climate Change is not an opinion
anymore - period, it is self-evident as Gravity and Newtonian Physics. the
ONLY contention is to what, IF anything humanity can do to slow down the
process and what to do about the EFFECTS on society, and civilisation that
are still coming down the track like an out of control train with a dead
driver at the helm.
people who *think* like you locked Gallileo up for years ....
"Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
news:936510f5-2da6-45a2...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 6:31 pm, "Tom Sr." <tomswiftsen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... get back to us rational people
> with exact quotes, in context, with reference locations that prove
> your *claims* that climate change is a fraud.
>
> We'll be waiting!
No, clearly you're the one denying.
The absence of proof is entirely on the ACG side of the argument. The
cooling of the last 10 years is proof enough for that (and they admit
as much in the emails).
But that's been clear all along, that it's been pseudo-science.
They've simply 'fessed up to what many of us have known for a long
time.
Fred Weiss
Tom Sr.
> On Nov 24, 6:31 pm, "Tom Sr." <tomswiftsen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > with exact quotes, in context, with reference locations that prove
> > your *claims* that climate change is a fraud.
> > We'll be waiting!
> No, clearly you're the one denying.
Clearly you could NOT offer any proof of your *belief*, as I
requested.
*yawn*
> The absence of proof is entirely on the ACG side of the argument. The
> cooling of the last 10 years is proof enough for that...
You know, I keep hearing this *claim* by you ultraconservative k00ks,
yet I have not seen even a single one of you state where this supposed
"fact" comes from.
So please post a citation about this "global cooling" from a peer-
reviewed article appearing in a professional climate science-related
periodical to provve this *belief* of yours.
> ...(and they admit as much in the emails).
Please provide a citation for that statement of yours.
We'll be wating!
-Tom Sr.
Fred Weiss
From the NYTimes:
_____________
Other e-mails that have drawn scrutiny include a message from Kevin
Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research in Boulder, Colo., that includes this sentence: "The fact is
that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is
a travesty that we can't."
______________
I hope I didn't make you wait too long.
But that is merely one among many admissions of scientific fraud on a
massive scale.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
However, as I said, the fraud was established long ago. All that's
been added now is the acknowledgement of those who've been committing
it and their abhorrent attempts to block any fair and open discussion
of it in scientific journals.
Fred Weiss
Tom Sr.
> From the NYTimes:
> _____________
> Other e-mails that have drawn scrutiny include a message from Kevin
> Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric
> Research in Boulder, Colo., that includes this sentence: "The fact is
> that we can't account for the lack of warming
"Lack of warming" does not mean "cooling"; it means things are not
getting warm then they currently are.
> at the moment
You claim that "Global Cooling" has been happening for 10 years. A
"moment" is not 10 years.
Also, when was this "moment"; i.e. when was this email written? 6-
months ago or 6 years? Now long did this "moment" last? There is
nothing written in this email to say that the warming had not started
again and, if so, when.
Context is very important for a correct understanding.
> and it is a travesty that we can't."
> ______________
Gee. A scientist who wants to truly *understand* and *explain*
something -- and not just make things up.
> I hope I didn't make you wait too long.
Since this email you posted did not prove anything you *claimed* it
did, I am still waiting. But never mind; I am finished with you.
> However, as I said, the fraud was established long ago. All that's
> been added now is the acknowledgement of those who've been committing
> it and their abhorrent attempts to block any fair and open discussion
> of it in scientific journals.
Ah, the paranoid delusions of the typical ultraconservative
personality!
Of course, you may *believe* as (let me guess from other posts of
yours I have read) a libertarian, you cannot be considered a
conservative. However, since both conservative and libertarian
beliefs are based on the same core principle of a self-only-first
concept, you are.
You will now likely attempt to rationalize the claim that since
libertarian goal is something-like "Freedom for all", you will fail to
understand this goal is still based on a self-only-first principle
(since it is *you* deciding that "Freedom for all" is what other
people *should* believe -- just like you do).
Of course, you may not be a libertarian. However, this does not make
you any less of a paranoid delusional k00k.
*yawn* You bore me, Fred.
-Tom Sr.
Bret Cahill
> massive scale.
>
>
> However, as I said, the fraud was established long ago.
By your creationist scientists?
> All that's
> been added now is the acknowledgement of those who've been committing
> it and their abhorrent attempts to block any fair and open discussion
> of it in scientific journals.
If Repugs are satisfied with so little maybe they won't spree too much
this November.
Bret Cahill
Rod Speed
> Tom Sr <tomswiftsen...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote
>> So please post a citation about this "global cooling" from
>> a peer-reviewed article appearing in a professional climate
>> science-related periodical to prove this *belief* of yours.
>>> ...(and they admit as much in the emails).
>> Please provide a citation for that statement of yours.
>> We'll be wating!
> From the NYTimes:
> _____________
>
> Other e-mails that have drawn scrutiny include a message from Kevin
> Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric
> Research in Boulder, Colo., that includes this sentence: "The fact is
> that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is
> a travesty that we can't."
That aint a a peer-reviewed article appearing in a professional climate science-related periodical,
>
> ______________
> I hope I didn't make you wait too long.
We're STILL waiting.
> But that is merely one among many admissions of scientific fraud on a massive scale.
Another bare faced lie.
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
> However, as I said, the fraud was established long ago.
Another bare faced lie.
> All that's been added now is the acknowledgement of those
> who've been committing it and their abhorrent attempts to
> block any fair and open discussion of it in scientific journals.
Another bare faced lie.
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss wrote
> > From the NYTimes:
> > _____________
>
> > Other e-mails that have drawn scrutiny include a message from Kevin
> > Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric
> > Research in Boulder, Colo., that includes this sentence: "The fact is
> > that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is
> > a travesty that we can't."
>
> That aint a a peer-reviewed article appearing in a professional climate science-related periodical,
True, it is merely an admission of guilt by one of those "peer-
reviewers".
Of course that it is merely one among many similar ClimateGate
confessions by the fraudsters.
I realize you members of the enviroHysteric Church are upset at the
revelation that your high priests are con men.
I grant you it is not pedophilia. The corruption of science is far,
far worse.
But denial won't make it go away. It'll just make you look even more
foolish than you have for years.
ClimateGate is an Inconvenient Truth.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
> > > From the NYTimes:
> > > _____________
>
> > > Other e-mails that have drawn scrutiny include a message from Kevin
> > > Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric
> > > Research in Boulder, Colo., that includes this sentence: "The fact is
> > > that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is
> > > a travesty that we can't."
>
> > That aint a a peer-reviewed article appearing in a professional climate science-related periodical,
>
> True,
Then it has no bearing on anything.
> it is merely an admission of guilt by one of those "peer-
> reviewers".
One "peer" does not a "peer reviewed" article make.
You need a broad majority of peers for a peer reviewed article.
> Of course that it is merely one among many similar ClimateGate
> confessions by the fraudsters.
Many as in 2 or 3.
> I realize you members of the enviroHysteric Church are upset at the
> revelation that your high priests are con men.
>
> I grant you it is not pedophilia. The corruption of science is far,
> far worse.
>
> But denial won't make it go away. It'll just make you look even more
> foolish than you have for years.
>
> ClimateGate is an Inconvenient Truth.
The AGW discussion distracts from and competes with the much more
immediate economic - political disaster of soaring oil prices.
I'ld love to see Al "the Priss" Gore discredited and losing money on
his conflict of interest investments.
I'ld be celebrating the Emails too if I grabbed onto any scrap of hope
like desperate rightards latching onto ACORN set up videos.
But I'm not delusional like out of power rightards.
Bret Cahill
Rod Speed
>>>> So please post a citation about this "global cooling" from
>>>> a peer-reviewed article appearing in a professional climate
>>>> science-related periodical to prove this belief of yours.
>>>>> ...(and they admit as much in the emails).
>>>> Please provide a citation for that statement of yours.
>>>> We'll be wating!
>>> From the NYTimes:
>>> _____________
>>> Other e-mails that have drawn scrutiny include a message from
>>> Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for
>>> Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., that includes this
>>> sentence: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of
>>> warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
>> That aint a a peer-reviewed article appearing in a professional
>> climate science-related periodical,
> True, it is merely an admission of guilt by one of those "peer-reviewers".
Nope, he aint a peer reviewer, and it aint an admission of guilt either.
JUST pointing out what is no news to anyone with even half a clue,
that there is considerable natural variation in the average temp
even without any possibility of any man made effects on that.
He's deploring the fact that we cant currently explain all the variations
we see in the average temperature over say decade time scales.
> Of course that it is merely one among many similar ClimateGate
> confessions by the fraudsters.
You're lying now.
> I realize you members of the enviroHysteric Church
In spades there. I dont even believe that global warming is a problem
even if it is happening for whatever reason. I realise that we have
seen MUCH more natural variation in global temps and sea levels
than anything predicted with CO2 levels and that global warming
isnt necessarily a bad thing, tho a considerable rise in sea levels
would certainly be quite expensive.
And if CO2 levels are a problem, the only thing that makes any
sense at all is to replace the coal fired power stations with nukes,
heat our houses etc with the electricity from nukes, save the
natural gas currently being wasted in heating and electricity
generation for a transport fuel and do something about the
massive problem the US has with oil imports at the same time.
> are upset at the revelation that your high priests are con men.
You're lying, as always.
> I grant you it is not pedophilia. The corruption of science is far, far worse.
You aint established that that shows any corruption of science whatever.
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
Shrikeback
> But I'm not delusional like out of power rightards.
That's just another one or two of your delusions.
Mason C
wrote:
>On Nov 25, 8:51�pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Fred Weiss wrote
>
>> > From the NYTimes:
>> > _____________
>>
>> > Other e-mails that have drawn scrutiny include a message from Kevin
>> > Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric
>> > Research in Boulder, Colo., that includes this sentence: "The fact is
>> > that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is
>> > a travesty that we can't."
>>
There's nothing wrong with that sentence. Any time a scientific theory fails to
explain something the scientist feels a sense of failure: "it's a travesty that
we can't explain that." And they go about finding the explanation. It does
*not* mean that they should throw out the theory -- it needs further
development. It does *not* mean they've been "lying" or deceiving.
( how "lying" got into the jargon of logic on these usenet groups is a
mystery to me )
Tom Sr.
> ClimateGate is an Inconvenient Truth.
"Climategate" *only* exist in the ignorant *beliefs* of those who
*politically* denied the *scientific* reality of climate change --
tgose mostly being ultraconservative, far-right-wing, fanatcal k00ks.
"Climategate" is fading in the use of news reports every day, as can
be seen by using the search engine in Google News. By the start of
next year, 2010, it will all but be gone, forgotten as it deserves to
me.
-Tom Sr.
Fred Weiss
> On Nov 26, 8:13 am, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> > ClimateGate is an Inconvenient Truth.
>
> "Climategate" *only* exist in the ignorant *beliefs* of those who
> *politically* denied the *scientific* reality of climate change --
Oh, I'm pretty sure that no one denies climate change - which of
course is preclsely why the enviroHysterics falling on their faces in
demonstrating *warming* - in the face of The Inconvenient Truth of
cooling - switched to "change".
Fred Weiss
Sean
On Nov 28, 9:06 am, "Tom Sr." <tomswiftsen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 8:13 am, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> > ClimateGate is an Inconvenient Truth.
>
> "Climategate" *only* exist in the ignorant *beliefs* of those who
> *politically* denied the *scientific* reality of climate change --
Oh, I'm pretty sure that no one denies climate change -
------------------------------
Um, Fred u need to get out more. many many deny climate change - period -
... and/or speak out both sides of their mouth. be they ng posters, media
commentators, politicians, and extremist kooks, of whom there are quite a
lot.
ALL People screaming from the tops of their lungs that the last 10 years
denotes a "proven" cooling cycle [ despite the credible work of trained
scientists are saying these unspoken or spoken words too ..." see, not
warming, it's cooling therefore climate change is a myth created by
environazi scientists in an attempt to take over the world and destroy
capitalism and freedom everywhere " ... or some such BS.
Les Cargill
By contamination from right wing talk shows of the fallacy
of the excluded middle, Rush Limbaugh's stock and trade.
--
Les Cargill