Take a look at this, Mayor.
Nashton
modifying agricultural techniques by around 15 %. Quietly and under the
radar, we learn that black carbon, that rinses away with rain and
methane, which can be easily controlled, now account for the *MAJORITY*
of AGW. CO2 doesn't even account for 50%.
I'm astonished that this didn't make headline news. In the future, I
wonder shat other discoveries will discredit the religion of CO2 as it
pertains to global warming.
At least Gore is honest but, I'm sure, many countries are going to
rethink their strategies on CO2 emissions and the Religion of man made
global warming, whose faithful are dwindling at an alarming rate, will
disappear quietly.
I suppose ZNU will respond that Newsweek is not a reliable source and
that it's probably a right wing publication.
Man do I hate Liberals.
Nashton
Mayor Of R'lyeh
ZnU is a communist. He will believe in and push any idea that can be
used to destroy Western Civilization. That's his ilk's real goal. It
seems bizarre to me that they seem to think this will somehow improve
everyone's life but they really do.
GreyCloud
What do you think of this latest breaking news?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html
The picture that emerges of prominent climate-change scientists from the
more than 3,000 documents and emails accessed by hackers and put on the
Internet this week is one of professional backbiting and questionable
scientific practices. It could undermine the idea that the science of
man-made global warming is entirely settled just weeks before a crucial
climate-change summit.
Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East
Anglia, England, were victims of a cyberattack by hackers sometime
Thursday. A collection of emails dating back to the mid-1990s as well as
scientific documents were splashed across the Internet. University
officials confirmed the hacker attack, but couldn't immediately confirm
the authenticity of all the documents posted on the Internet.
The publicly posted material includes years of correspondence among
leading climate researchers, most of whom participate in the preparation
of climate-change reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, the authoritative summaries of global climate science that
influence policy makers around the world.
The release of the documents comes just weeks before a big
climate-change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, meant to lay the
groundwork for a new global treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and
fight climate change. Momentum for an agreement has been undermined by
the economic slump, which has put environmental issues on the back
burner in most countries, and by a 10-year cooling trend in global
temperatures that runs contrary to many of the dire predictions in
climate models such as the IPCC's.
A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate
scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In
others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves
in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one
occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about
climate change and extreme weather events because environmental
officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."
The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of
man-made global warming, who for years have argued that the scientific
"consensus" was less robust than the official IPCC summaries indicated
and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists
who presented findings that differed from orthodox views.
Since the hacking, many Web sites catering to climate skeptics have
pored over the material and concluded that it shows a concerted effort
to distort climate science. Other Web sites catering to climate
scientists have dismissed those claims.
The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More
recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned
about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of
the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to
pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example.
Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change
were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other
exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat
the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.
In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange
for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific
journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to
pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists
whose findings they disagreed with.
One email from 1999, titled "CENSORED!!!!!" showed one U.S.-based
scientist uncomfortable with such tactics. "As for thinking that it is
'Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us' � as
though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of
paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether
we agree with individual articles or not," the email said.
More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate
researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of
their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the
Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access
to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.
Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for
information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was
intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA
requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all
emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others,
they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make
their data public.
Mayor Of R'lyeh
> though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of
> paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether
> we agree with individual articles or not," the email said.
>
> More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate
> researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of
> their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the
> Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access
> to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.
>
> Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for
> information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was
> intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA
> requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all
> emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others,
> they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make
> their data public.
That's what I was talking about in my post. These guys lied and they
knew they were lying. The next time some deluded fool talks about
'scientific consensus' on the global warming hoax remind it that its
was actually a 'scientific conspiracy'.
GreyCloud
>> though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of
>> paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether
>> we agree with individual articles or not," the email said.
>>
>> More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate
>> researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of
>> their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the
>> Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access
>> to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.
>>
>> Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for
>> information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was
>> intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA
>> requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all
>> emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others,
>> they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make
>> their data public.
>
> That's what I was talking about in my post. These guys lied and they
> knew they were lying. The next time some deluded fool talks about
> 'scientific consensus' on the global warming hoax remind it that its
> was actually a 'scientific conspiracy'.
>
>
Now I hear that Obama is after the hackers that exposed this massive
hoax. All I see it is global carbon tax on anyone breathing.
If Cap-and-Trade ever gets passed,... welcome to one world government
and kiss the US constitution and all your rights goodbye.
Sandman
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
While certainly frowned upon, it's not like this invalidates anything.
Is this all?
> The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of
> man-made global warming, who for years have argued that the scientific
> "consensus" was less robust than the official IPCC summaries indicated
> and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists
> who presented findings that differed from orthodox views.
>
> Since the hacking, many Web sites catering to climate skeptics have
> pored over the material and concluded that it shows a concerted effort
> to distort climate science. Other Web sites catering to climate
> scientists have dismissed those claims.
>
> The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More
> recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned
> about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of
> the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to
> pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example.
>
> Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change
> were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other
> exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat
> the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.
People that are provoked call the other people names. News at 11.
> In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange
> for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific
> journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to
> pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists
> whose findings they disagreed with.
>
> One email from 1999, titled "CENSORED!!!!!" showed one U.S.-based
> scientist uncomfortable with such tactics. "As for thinking that it is
> 'Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us' � as
> though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of
> paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether
> we agree with individual articles or not," the email said.
>
> More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate
> researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of
> their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the
> Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access
> to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.
>
> Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for
> information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was
> intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA
> requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all
> emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others,
> they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make
> their data public.
What an anti-climax! They we're hacked and nothing interesting was
exposed...
--
Sandman[.net]
Nashton
>
> What an anti-climax! They we're hacked and nothing interesting was
> exposed...
>
>
You can't be serious.
How about the article in Science that (Newsweek) that I provided where
new evidence is emerging about the relative role of CO2 in AGW? Did you
find anything interesting in that one?
This is a tectonic shift in the science of GW and I hope you're not
waiting until it becomes "common knowledge" to believe it.
Nashton
<snip>
raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.
>
> Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for
> information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was
> intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA
> requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all
> emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others,
> they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make
> their data public.
>
Why am I not surprised?
GreyCloud
It does invalidate everything, when considering that the whole thing is
a fraud.
>> The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of
>> man-made global warming, who for years have argued that the scientific
>> "consensus" was less robust than the official IPCC summaries indicated
>> and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists
>> who presented findings that differed from orthodox views.
>>
>> Since the hacking, many Web sites catering to climate skeptics have
>> pored over the material and concluded that it shows a concerted effort
>> to distort climate science. Other Web sites catering to climate
>> scientists have dismissed those claims.
>>
>> The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More
>> recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned
>> about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of
>> the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to
>> pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example.
>>
>> Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change
>> were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other
>> exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat
>> the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.
>
> People that are provoked call the other people names. News at 11.
>
It is worse than we realize. A lot of scientists that disagree usually
lose their job or position. That isn't right.
>> In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange
>> for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific
>> journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to
>> pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists
>> whose findings they disagreed with.
>>
>> One email from 1999, titled "CENSORED!!!!!" showed one U.S.-based
>> scientist uncomfortable with such tactics. "As for thinking that it is
>> 'Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us' � as
>> though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of
>> paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether
>> we agree with individual articles or not," the email said.
>>
>> More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate
>> researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of
>> their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the
>> Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access
>> to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.
>>
>> Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for
>> information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was
>> intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA
>> requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all
>> emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others,
>> they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make
>> their data public.
>
> What an anti-climax! They we're hacked and nothing interesting was
> exposed...
>
>
A lot was exposed. Like the comments in the actual source code. That
part is rather revealing according to the hackers that went after this
code thru the FOI process and being snubbed.
GreyCloud
Worse is that the data was fraudulent and bogus that was collected and
jimmied.
It is all about funding a one world government. By scaring the kiddies
into believing this fraud, they will bow down and pay the carbon tax.
Sandman
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> > While certainly frowned upon, it's not like this invalidates anything.
> > Is this all?
>
> It does invalidate everything
Nopes. Try again.
> >> Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change
> >> were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other
> >> exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat
> >> the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.
> >
> > People that are provoked call the other people names. News at 11.
>
> It is worse than we realize. A lot of scientists that disagree usually
> lose their job or position. That isn't right.
Skip to the facts, will you? This is empty air and vague speculation.
Come on, surely you have something solid?
> > What an anti-climax! They we're hacked and nothing interesting was
> > exposed...
>
> A lot was exposed.
Such as the world-shattering news that scientists send emails to each
others, and call people names! My god!
> Like the comments in the actual source code. That part is rather
> revealing according to the hackers that went after this code thru
> the FOI process and being snubbed.
I sure hope you have something more substantial as your backup
argument when discussing this "for real" outside csma...
--
Sandman[.net]
GreyCloud
> In article <mJKdnUVYlbyrgpbW...@bresnan.com>,
> GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
>>> While certainly frowned upon, it's not like this invalidates anything.
>>> Is this all?
>> It does invalidate everything
>
> Nopes. Try again.
Of course it does. Have you ever read the emails?
From some media sources, it looks like a big spin job.
>
>>>> Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change
>>>> were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other
>>>> exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat
>>>> the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.
>>> People that are provoked call the other people names. News at 11.
>> It is worse than we realize. A lot of scientists that disagree usually
>> lose their job or position. That isn't right.
>
> Skip to the facts, will you? This is empty air and vague speculation.
> Come on, surely you have something solid?
>
The facts have already been revealed. These scientists have been
corrupted by their own government... and everyone knows that these
scientists get their funding to do this kind of research from the
government. If they don't give what the government is really after,
they get fired.
>>> What an anti-climax! They we're hacked and nothing interesting was
>>> exposed...
>> A lot was exposed.
>
> Such as the world-shattering news that scientists send emails to each
> others, and call people names! My god!
And worse that some scientists that differ, and that the peer review
process has been circumvented, and that some scientists have been black
balled due to politics, and you call this science? It is called junk
science for someone elses benefit. Surely not for ours.
>
>> Like the comments in the actual source code. That part is rather
>> revealing according to the hackers that went after this code thru
>> the FOI process and being snubbed.
>
> I sure hope you have something more substantial as your backup
> argument when discussing this "for real" outside csma...
>
>
I have provided the url where one can down load this source.
http://88.80.16.63/leak/climactic-research-unit-foi-leaked-data.zip
You are a programmer... maybe you can go over the comments in the code.
Worse thing that happened is that they are hiding the truth that the
earth has been cooling off since the 1960s.
Don't get yourself caught up in the left-wing/right-wing paradigm. It
is designed to divide people. Both parties are one and the same thing
when you look at it. And science scientists have been corrupted.
Alan Baker
<bdbaccf4-991c-47ec...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
<yawn>
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
Fa-groon
(in article <alangbaker-2C722...@news.shawcable.com>):
> In article
> <bdbaccf4-991c-47ec...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> "Mayor Of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 22, 7:12ï¿œam, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>> Quietly and under the radar, we learn that we can reduce CO2 by
>>> modifying agricultural techniques by around 15 %. Quietly and under the
>>> radar, we learn that black carbon, that rinses away with rain and
>>> methane, which can be easily controlled, now account for the *MAJORITY*
>>> of AGW. CO2 doesn't even account for 50%.
>>>
>>> I'm astonished that this didn't make headline news. In the future, I
>>> wonder shat other discoveries will discredit the religion of CO2 as it
>>> pertains to global warming.
>>> At least Gore is honest but, I'm sure, many countries are going to
>>> rethink their strategies on CO2 emissions and the Religion of man made
>>> global warming, whose faithful are dwindling at an alarming rate, will
>>> disappear quietly.
>>>
>>> I suppose ZNU will respond that Newsweek is not a reliable source and
>>> that it's probably a right wing publication.
>>>
>>> Man do I hate Liberals.
>>
>> ZnU is a communist. He will believe in and push any idea that can be
>> used to destroy Western Civilization. That's his ilk's real goal. It
>> seems bizarre to me that they seem to think this will somehow improve
>> everyone's life but they really do.
>
> <yawn>
>
>
I don't get a sense that ZnU is a Communist at all. From my point of view he
seems just another American laissez-faire Liberal which basically means that
in relation to most Europeans, he's pretty conservative.