Hackers steal electronic data
Cliff
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.html?hpid=sec-nation
"Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center"
[
The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of
the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have
been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. The
researchers, however, say the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely
reflect an honest exchange of ideas.
]
"We are extremely concerned that personal information about individuals may
have been compromised. Because of the volume of this information we cannot
currently confirm what proportion of this material is genuine."
Expect wingers to post altertions & fabrications too.
--
Cliff
Cliff
"... skeptics are "taking these words totally out of context to make something
trivial appear nefarious."'
Buerste
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:p5vfg5hfmfs79d870...@4ax.com...
Oh well, it was a good one while it lasted. Does Gore lose his Nobel Prize
or do they just change the category to "Best Fiction"?
BDR-529
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.html?hpid=sec-nation
>> "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center"
>> [
>> The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of
>> the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have
>> been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming.
>> Expect wingers to post altertions & fabrications too.
>
> is about the most damning thing they could do.
>
> Notice - from YOUR source - "evidence ... have been rigged to make it
> appear as if humans are causing global warming."
That is simply not true, it may have been rigged to look neater, but
there is too much evidence in favor of man-made global warming that has
nothing to do with the CRU data being hacked.
Perhaps take a look at www.skepticalscience.com.
>
> Hard to top that.
>
> You know how much trouble Bush got in over e-mails. Now it's on the
> other foot. It's a bitch leaving a paper trail.
>
> http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/03/al-gore-the-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire/print/
> Gore is poised to reap hundreds of millions from
> investments in the companies that will benefit from the government's
> increased emphasis on green technology. According to The New York
> Times's John Broder, Gore could become the world's first "carbon
> billionaire."
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
BDR-529
> BDR-529 <el@wood> wrote:
>> Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.html?hpid=sec-nation
>>>> "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center"
>>>> [
>>>> The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of
>>>> the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have
>>>> been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming.
>>> ...snip
>>>> Expect wingers to post altertions & fabrications too.
>>> From what I've seen of them so far, circulating them as is, unaltered
>>> is about the most damning thing they could do.
>>>
>>> Notice - from YOUR source - "evidence ... have been rigged to make it
>>> appear as if humans are causing global warming."
>> That is simply not true, it may have been rigged to look neater, but
>> there is too much evidence in favor of man-made global warming that has
>> nothing to do with the CRU data being hacked.
>>
>> Perhaps take a look at www.skepticalscience.com.
>
> prove the case. My saying it, does not prove the case.
>
> The question remains why would they "rig" the data if it proves their
> point on it's own merits?
People "rig" the data to show what they want to show.
Do it with any time series coming from an instrument, and try to explain
your grandma what that instrument is supposed to show. Soon you'll be
fiddling and twisting the data to make your point.
Now, this happens in nearly every branch of science, point is whether
the modifications in presenting the data to support the theory differ
from one group to another.
If group "A" says: "we see that the moon is made from swiss cheese"
while group "B" says it does not, then which information would you take
in your report to grandma?
Most people who regularly talk with grandma know that she can be
obnoxious, so, they want to be sure that grandma is not upset. So they
contact independent groups to look into the problem.
If next to group "B" there are groups like "C" till "F" all confirming
that the moon is not made from swiss cheese then we are inclined to
believe that the moon is indeed not made out of it.
It adds a little bit of confidence when you talk to grandma.
But, once astronauts landed on the moon, and brought samples back most
folks were convinced though that basalt is bad for your teeth, at the
same time grandma will lose our respect because she has been too
obnoxious with regard to a simply question to which we knew the answer
all away along.
With global warming it will be no different.
Q
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> BDR-529 <el@wood> wrote:
>>Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/
AR2009112004093.html?hpid=sec-nation
>>>> "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center"
>>>> [
>>>> The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic
>>>> Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence
>>>> that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans
>>>> are causing global warming.
>>> ...snip
>>>> Expect wingers to post altertions & fabrications too.
>>>
>>> From what I've seen of them so far, circulating them as is, unaltered
>>> is about the most damning thing they could do.
>>>
>>> Notice - from YOUR source - "evidence ... have been rigged to make it
>>> appear as if humans are causing global warming."
>>
>>That is simply not true, it may have been rigged to look neater, but
>>there is too much evidence in favor of man-made global warming that has
>>nothing to do with the CRU data being hacked.
>>
>>Perhaps take a look at www.skepticalscience.com.
>
> And there is plenty to say it isn't too. Your saying it, does not prove
> the case. My saying it, does not prove the case.
>
> The question remains why would they "rig" the data if it proves their
> point on it's own merits?
Do you have any evidence that the data was "rigged"?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
> What AGWs do... rigging up an average of both and claiming a correlation
> to CO2 with a minimal standard error.
Do you have any evidence for that?
> Statisticians would like to draw a trend line from that on how long it
> lasts until the cheese part is rotten and the moon will be doomed.
Do you have any evidence to support that brain fart either?
Bill Ward
> Winston_Smith wrote:
>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/
AR2009112004093.html?hpid=sec-nation
>>> "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center"
>>> [
>>> The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic
>>> Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence
>>> that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans
>>> are causing global warming.
>> ...snip
>>> Expect wingers to post altertions & fabrications too.
>>
>> From what I've seen of them so far, circulating them as is, unaltered
>> is about the most damning thing they could do.
>>
>> Notice - from YOUR source - "evidence ... have been rigged to make it
>> appear as if humans are causing global warming."
>
> That is simply not true, it may have been rigged to look neater, but
> there is too much evidence in favor of man-made global warming that has
> nothing to do with the CRU data being hacked.
If there is clear evidence for AGW, then why did they have to behave the
way they did? I can understand trying to cheat if they knew were losing,
but why if they thought they had an honest, convincing case? Just for
the fun of it? It doesn't look good either way.
> Perhaps take a look at www.skepticalscience.com.
Why? I've seen it. Quote the part you think is convincing.
<snip>
Buerste
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:heaqb2$nat$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Too late, your side falsified data and got caught. Point, set, match...you
loose!
Buerste
Laugh-laugh-laugh! You loose!
Bill Ward
I really think you're losing it, Q. You're beginning to make Lloyd look
good, with that rambling lunacy.
BDR-529
Well Bill, apparently you want to uphold the fairy tale that the moon is
made up from swiss cheese, it is an opinion, but that is all.
BDR-529
Your evidence doesn't come further either then a few funny sounds from
the troth, it is not even an opinion...
Q
BDR-529
> He obviously morphed into a LLiard LLoyd with his broad range of inappropriate
> comparisons.
> :-)
Ok, Mulehead, show us what we all want to hear, but then with some
genuine peer-reviewed evidence in an ISI journal. You have nothing.
JohnM
> Bill Ward wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:11:00 +0100, BDR-529 wrote:
>
> >> Winston_Smith wrote:
> >>> BDR-529 <el@wood> wrote:
> >>>> Winston_Smith wrote:
It's more than that. Bilbo knows with every fibre of his being that
the moon is just a piece of ageing Stilton. Using identical logic he
dismisses AGW as false.
BDR-529
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAAAAAA
> Nice joke, really.
That is not even an opinion, but a sound out of the troth.
I M @ good guy
>What AGWs do... rigging up an average of both and claiming a correlation to
>CO2 with a minimal standard error.
>Statisticians would like to draw a trend line from that on how long it lasts
>until the cheese part is rotten and the moon will be doomed.
Most important, it suggests that AGW, is based on a
misconstrued impression of what GHGs do with an extreme,
even demented focus on CO2 and it's capability.
GHGs do no make the Earth "warmer", something about
the atmosphere keeps it from cooling off as much at night,
but it is warmer in daytime than at night unless a strong
warm front moves in with the wind.
The idea that GHGs warm the Earth is comical too,
since GHGs cool the atmosphere, another case of both
warming and cooling, perhaps if properly defined and
described, is true.
Ed Huntress
"Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com> wrote in message
news:1_6Om.68926$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad...
Him loose? Me think you tight -- and getting tighter by the minute. d8-)
When did you take up drinking in such a big way, Tom?
--
Ed Huntress
RayLopez99
> >>> "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center"
> >>> [
> >>> The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic
> >>> Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence
> >>> that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans
> >>> are causing global warming.
> >> ...snip
> >>> Expect wingers to post altertions & fabrications too.
>
> >> From what I've seen of them so far, circulating them as is, unaltered
> >> is about the most damning thing they could do.
>
> >> Notice - from YOUR source - "evidence ... have been rigged to make it
> >> appear as if humans are causing global warming."
>
> > That is simply not true, it may have been rigged to look neater, but
> > there is too much evidence in favor of man-made global warming that has
> > nothing to do with the CRU data being hacked.
>
> If there is clear evidence for AGW, then why did they have to behave the
> way they did? I can understand trying to cheat if they knew were losing,
> but why if they thought they had an honest, convincing case? Just for
> the fun of it? It doesn't look good either way.
>
> > Perhaps take a look atwww.skepticalscience.com.
>
> Why? I've seen it. Quote the part you think is convincing.
>
> <snip>
Right you are. Even the liberal Washington Post ran an article today
about how this story is #1 in their online most popular and how it's
equivalent to the "Pentagon Papers". Imagine, says the Post, this
happening in AIDS research.
If researchers are intimidated over publishing anything negative about
the effects of GW, we'll never uncover the truth. And the truth may
be, as the IPCC (!) itself has said, only a mean sea level rise of 5
cm over the next 100 years at the lower bound--nothing to worry
about. Climate change has been going on since the last Ice Age, and
climate goes in cycles. If we let the strong AGW proponents steal the
show, and impose Draconian CO2 limits, it will make this Great
Recession look like a Great Depression in no time. The best solution
is a mild carbon tax (for Peak Oil purposes) or doing nothing until we
have better technology to directly remove CO2 from the atmosphere via
geoengineering.
We can't let these AGW 'tards win. It will be the death of the human
race--which most of them, as Green freaks, secretly want.
RL
Buerste
"BDR-529" <el@wood> wrote in message
news:4b0900d1$0$22903$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
The evidence is that YOUR evidence is bullshit!
Curly Surmudgeon
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
So you have no evidence for that assertion?
>> > Statisticians would like to draw a trend line from that on how long
>> > it lasts until the cheese part is rotten and the moon will be doomed.
>>
>> Do you have any evidence to support that brain fart either?
>
> You AGWs are a little bit bristled these days, are you?
>
> Apart from this, I revealed data fudging more than once. The clue is
> that subtly observations of nature and making comparisons to AGW claims
> and Global Pacman Models show the fraud. Your "real climate" scientists
> may cover any "in-house" product, but there is always something that can
> not be covered. It's sometimes not easy to find, but if not at first
> sight, then on 2nd or 3rd, or in combination with other data products.
> Whatever AGWs do, sceptics are always on their tail...
Then it should have been easy to provide evidence of the above
assertion. Which you did not.
Curly Surmudgeon
You have more patience than I, Ed. I do not suffer fools well and Bozo
Filtered Buerste some time ago. Fools are no longer entertaining,
they're pathetic and I have more important issues in my life than trying
to convince the willfully ignorant. Fuck'm, a life of ignorance is its
own punishment.
Curly Surmudgeon
I think that was Peter Muehlbauer who asserted the moon was made of
cheese, just plain cheese, not swiss or green. More likely an alias of
Brian Burke AKA HH&C and dozens of other nyms.
Curly Surmudgeon
<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:30:52 +0100, BDR-529 wrote:
>
>> Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/
> AR2009112004093.html?hpid=sec-nation
>>>> "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center"
>>>> [
>>>> The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic
>>>> Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence
>>>> that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans
>>>> are causing global warming.
>>> ...snip
>>>> Expect wingers to post altertions & fabrications too.
>>>
>>> From what I've seen of them so far, circulating them as is, unaltered
>>> is about the most damning thing they could do.
>>>
>>> Notice - from YOUR source - "evidence ... have been rigged to make it
>>> appear as if humans are causing global warming."
What do you consider "rigged"? What evidence do you have that the data
was fundamentally altered? Do you consider a least squares curve fit
"rigged"? Show us the data before and after so we can make our own
educated judgments without your opinion involved.
>> That is simply not true, it may have been rigged to look neater, but
>> there is too much evidence in favor of man-made global warming that has
>> nothing to do with the CRU data being hacked.
>
> If there is clear evidence for AGW, then why did they have to behave the
> way they did?
How did "they" behave? Who is "they"? Use proper nouns, not pronouns.
> I can understand trying to cheat if they knew were
> losing, but why if they thought they had an honest, convincing case?
Again, who are "they"? What are "they" losing?
> Just for the fun of it? It doesn't look good either way.
What doesn't look good? "It" is another indefinable pronoun. WTF are
you trying to say?
>> Perhaps take a look at www.skepticalscience.com.
>
> Why? I've seen it. Quote the part you think is convincing.
>
> <snip>
--
BDR529
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:12:33 +0100, BDR-529<el@wood> wrote:
>
>> Bill Ward wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:11:00 +0100, BDR-529 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>> BDR-529<el@wood> wrote:
>>>>>> Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> Cliff<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/
>>> AR2009112004093.html?hpid=sec-nation
>>>>>>>> "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center"
>>>>>>>> [
>>>>>>>> The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic
>>>>>>>> Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as
>>>>>>>> evidence that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear
>>>>>>>> as if humans are causing global warming.
>>>>>>> ...snip
Completely OT: referring to your sig; is 2012 worth spending 3 hours in
the cinema?
Q
BDR529
Guys: be serious now, I'm trying to keep an open vision to facts rather
than opinions or ad homs although I sometimes become a little bit cynical.
If you find anything that convincingly shows gross manipulation,
twisting with data etc etc, something showing that tree ring
reconstructions are really really bad temperature proxies, then just
discuss it.
This may be a once in a lifetime opportunity. Really bad means,
hockeysticks that disappear, becoming noisy lines, etc. That sort of
information is crucial to hunt for at the moment, and I don't exclude
the possiblity that it may have happened along the lines.
Q
Ed Huntress
Oh, I think you have lots more patience than I do. I just ignore most of
them because it pisses me off to see grown men act like spoiled adolescents.
Tom and I were quite friendly for years. Recently he decided that a question
I asked him was a personal attack. It wasn't, and he really knows it, but
he's been hanging around with Gunner a lot and he was looking for an excuse
to rant and rave about his tormentors -- which is anyone who doesn't think
that small business owners are God's gift to America and that they are
underappreciated and undercompensated. <g> It's a good time for that;
persecution complexes are all the rage on the right these days.
Just ignore him. He likes to troll, and he's in a bad mood, so you never
know when he means something or he's just trying to provoke. You can plonk
him with no loss in content whatsoever. He almost never has anything to
contribute.
> Fools are no longer entertaining,
> they're pathetic and I have more important issues in my life than trying
> to convince the willfully ignorant. Fuck'm, a life of ignorance is its
> own punishment.
True enough. There are more important things to do. I just hang around for
the occassional writing practice. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
Curly Surmudgeon
> Completely OT: referring to your sig; is 2012 worth spending 3 hours in
> the cinema?
If you mean the forthcoming movie, I have no idea. It's not yet released
in Argentina. Takes a while to do the voice-overs and subtitles I'd
imagine.
hda
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>Something tells me I can't trust you.
Because ejo schrama's behaviour and writing here is below
par, while he could and should do better as a teaching
scholar paid from our EU tax money. Science is missing a
lot, like the integrity demonstrated by people from the past
like Richard P. Feynman or Edsger W. Dijkstra. Read some of
the story of Feynman's Cargo Cult Science:
"... For example, I was a little surprised when I was
talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He
does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he
would explain what the applications of this work were.
"Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then
we won't get support for more research of this kind." I
think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing
yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the
layman what you're doing--and if they don't want to support
you under those circumstances, then that's their decision."
BDR529
hda misses the point entirely, too bad.
Curly Surmudgeon
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> So why are you still here?
Because there are a few posters who are not fools.
Duh...
Curly Surmudgeon
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> Do you have the phone number of the nut house that paroled you?
Is that how you respond face to face? An intelligent response would have
been, "You are in error, that was not I, it was BDR-529 making that
posting." Since your group is not often crossposted to the one I read
I've not seen your style or discussion practice.
It sucks.
I M @ good guy
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>That's what I pointed out here several times.
>
>Not only the fact, that Earth is in the coolest phase with the lowest CO2 over
>the whole history but also there is no correlation of temperature to CO2.
>AGWs may claim a strict correlation, but an obvious inconsistence over the
>last 10 years proves their hypothesis wrong.
>The whole AGW crap simply based on a 130 year peroid compared against earth's
>history and an assumed portion of a very few ppmv as human part.
>And that's really assumptive and ridiculous.
The UAH raw data seems to show a lot of nothing,
any month may have a negative anomaly, and only woger
can call that a warming trend.
Curly Surmudgeon
Then you can post that nothing here and allow us to make our own
determinations. Please do so. MathCAD awaits.
BDR-529
Han Damwichers?
mrbawana2u
> Winston_Smith wrote:
>
> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR200...
> >> "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center"
> >> [
> >> The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of
> >> the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have
> >> been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming.
> > ...snip
> >> Expect wingers to post altertions & fabrications too.
>
> > From what I've seen of them so far, circulating them as is, unaltered
> > is about the most damning thing they could do.
>
> > Notice - from YOUR source - "evidence ... have been rigged to make it
> > appear as if humans are causing global warming."
>
> That is simply not true, it may have been rigged to look neater, but
> there is too much evidence in favor of man-made global warming that has
> nothing to do with the CRU data being hacked.
Wrong.
There is NO evidence of man-made global warming.
> Perhaps take a look atwww.skepticalscience.com.
I did.
Boring bullshit from a left-turd.
mrbawana2u
> Winston_Smith wrote:
> > BDR-529 <el@wood> wrote:
> >> Winston_Smith wrote:
> >>> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
> >>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR200...
> >>>> "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center"
> >>>> [
> >>>> The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of
> >>>> the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have
> >>>> been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming.
> >>> ...snip
> >>>> Expect wingers to post altertions & fabrications too.
> >>> From what I've seen of them so far, circulating them as is, unaltered
> >>> is about the most damning thing they could do.
>
> >>> Notice - from YOUR source - "evidence ... have been rigged to make it
> >>> appear as if humans are causing global warming."
> >> That is simply not true, it may have been rigged to look neater, but
> >> there is too much evidence in favor of man-made global warming that has
> >> nothing to do with the CRU data being hacked.
>
> > prove the case. My saying it, does not prove the case.
>
> > The question remains why would they "rig" the data if it proves their
> > point on it's own merits?
>
Yes, especially when the data proves them to be fools.
I M @ good guy
Curly Surmudgeon
Easier to use a spreadsheet than MathCAD for simple running averages.
Ignore the first 9 months of data, the averaging pipeline was empty.
http://www.curlysurmudgeon.net/data01X10.png
Curly Surmudgeon
> What?
> No trend calculation?
> No R^2?
> No standard error?
> Especially not over the last 10 years?
None needed to show the trend. If real math were used the trolls would
claim it's "rigged."
> And how should we trust your graph, if you are not even able to handle
> your Excel correctly to go around empty data?
Not excel, kimosabe.
> Ignoring" the first 9
> month like you did and drawing a trendline would result in an erroneous
> calculation.
Bitch, bitch, bitch. It was never my intention to please the trolls, if
you want more do it yourself. Then you'll find the result accurate.
> Be more scientific, boy.
And you expect others to cater to that attitude? Go fuck yourself.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Rudy, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Jaques
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:30:42 +0100, the infamous BDR-529 <el@wood>
scrawled the following:
>hda wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:48:46 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
>> <spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
--tiny snippage--
>> http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
Long live Dicky Feynman, in whatever state he's evolved to now.
And the cargo cult reminds me, once again, of the lovely book about
it. Everyone MUST read this book/author.
Island of the Sequined Love Nun (ISBN 0-06-073544-9) is the fourth
novel by absurdist author Christopher Moore, published in 1997. It is
based partly on the author's personal experiences in Micronesia.
>Han Damwichers?
Damwicher Torpedoes! Offwicher heads!
--
It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare;
it is because we do not dare that they are difficult.
-- Seneca
BDR-529
What you see is that AGW deniers have no science to support their
opinions, there are no AGW denier facts in the sense of peer reviewed
ISI articles that support their theory if it exists at all.
BDR-529
> Steve Ackman <st...@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com> wrote:
>
>> In <4b0980f4$0$22937$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>, on Sun, 22 Nov 2009
>>
>>> Guys: be serious now, I'm trying to keep an open vision to facts rather
>>> than opinions or ad homs although I sometimes become a little bit cynical.
>>>
>>> If you find anything that convincingly shows gross manipulation,
>>> twisting with data etc etc, something showing that tree ring
>>> reconstructions are really really bad temperature proxies, then just
>>> discuss it.
>>>
>>> This may be a once in a lifetime opportunity. Really bad means,
>>> hockeysticks that disappear, becoming noisy lines, etc. That sort of
>>> information is crucial to hunt for at the moment, and I don't exclude
>>> the possiblity that it may have happened along the lines.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
>>
>> Slides that loosely follow the above presentation:
>> http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf
>
>
> Here is another very good and actual one
>
> http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog/finnische-tv-doku-deckt-fehler-in-der-klimawissenschaft-auf/001004/
>
> If loading lasts too long, try the same here:
>
> http://dotsub.com/view/4c13587a-ea76-4c4a-bbf7-eba2a48a58a6
So far NOTHING has appeared in a peer reviewed ISI science journal from
the AGW deniers camps. Not single paper says, AGW is invalid, there is none.
Curly Surmudgeon
Their opposition seems to be one of hope in the status quo, faith or
belief. Just as the Birthers and Bushbots denied so do the Global
Warming deniers. If their faith failed then they'd have to follow the
resulting logic trail and that must not happen. Living ecologically?
Reducing energy dependence? Building better homes and more efficient
cars? Heavens, we cannot have that! So we deny the undeniable.
When the facts are against them they whine about style, form or color.
Global Warming is just another product of the Bush years of polarizing
society. Fuck'm all.
bo*n*z*o
No problems with that.
I'm all for "Reducing energy dependence" and "Building better homes and
more efficient cars".
I'm not sure what "Living ecologically" means but it sounds like a reversion
to cave dwelling, so count me out!
It's the blatant scaremongering, the agenda for global governance, the
"climate debt", and other whacko ideas you crackpots are pushing which rub
most rational people up the wrong way!
Warmest Regards
B0n oz
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
BDR-529
> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
> news:hefp80$b0r$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:20:55 +0100, BDR-529 <el@wood> wrote:
>> Their opposition seems to be one of hope in the status quo, faith or
>> belief. Just as the Birthers and Bushbots denied so do the Global
>> Warming deniers. If their faith failed then they'd have to follow the
>> resulting logic trail and that must not happen. Living ecologically?
>> Reducing energy dependence? Building better homes and more efficient
>> cars? Heavens, we cannot have that!
>
>
> No problems with that.
> I'm all for "Reducing energy dependence" and "Building better homes and
> more efficient cars".
> I'm not sure what "Living ecologically" means but it sounds like a reversion
> to cave dwelling, so count me out!
> It's the blatant scaremongering, the agenda for global governance, the
> "climate debt", and other whacko ideas you crackpots are pushing which rub
> most rational people up the wrong way!
Congrats bonzo, your own opinion. It is clear now that everyone hates
the scaremongering even when you think AGW is right.
Q
>
>
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> B0n oz
>
> "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
> US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
> worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
> from natural variation."
> Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
>
>
>
Larry Jaques
scrawled the following:
>So far NOTHING has appeared in a peer reviewed ISI science journal from
>the AGW deniers camps. Not single paper says, AGW is invalid, there is none.
Nope, only the data compiled by scientists found that real data didn't
flow into their kind of catastrophe chart the way they wanted. It
seems that Mother Nature has other things on her mind, like cooling.
Har! Oh, so solly!
BTW, you forgot the "k" in AGWK. It stands for "kumbaya", which is
stated after the chant of "Anthropogenic Globular sWarming". Got it?
Now, if we can just finish discrediting the nuclear holocausters and
keep with the facts, nukes will help stop the filthy furnaces we now
call coal-fired power plants.
I'll bet the head of the EPA has been locked in a perpetual grimace
since this little tidbit of hacking news got out. <heh heh heh>
The WSJ had a good article on it this morning, Global Warming with the
Lid Off.
HH&C
wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR200...
> "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center"
> [
> The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of
> the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have
> researchers, however, say the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely
> reflect an honest exchange of ideas.
> ]
> "We are extremely concerned that personal information about individuals may
> have been compromised. Because of the volume of this information we cannot
> currently confirm what proportion of this material is genuine."
>
> Expect wingers to post altertions & fabrications too.
> Cliff
University employees have about as much a right to privacy in their
work emails as government employees have... NONE!
HH&C
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:51:25 -0600, Bill Ward
>
>
>
>
>
> <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:30:52 +0100, BDR-529 wrote:
>
> >> Winston_Smith wrote:
> >>> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
> >>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/
> >>>> "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center"
> >>>> [
> >>>> The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic
> >>>> Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence
> >>>> that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans
> >>>> are causing global warming.
> >>>> Expect wingers to post altertions & fabrications too.
>
> >>> is about the most damning thing they could do.
>
> >>> appear as if humans are causing global warming."
>
> was fundamentally altered? Do you consider a least squares curve fit
> "rigged"? Show us the data before and after so we can make our own
> educated judgments without your opinion involved.
>
> >> That is simply not true, it may have been rigged to look neater, but
> >> there is too much evidence in favor of man-made global warming that has
> >> nothing to do with the CRU data being hacked.
>
> > way they did?
>
> How did "they" behave? Who is "they"? Use proper nouns, not pronouns.
>
> > I can understand trying to cheat if they knew were
> > losing, but why if they thought they had an honest, convincing case?
>
> Again, who are "they"? What are "they" losing?
>
> > Just for the fun of it? It doesn't look good either way.
>
> What doesn't look good? "It" is another indefinable pronoun. WTF are
> you trying to say?> > Why? I've seen it. Quote the part you think is convincing.
>
> > <snip>
>
> --
> Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
Curly, I recall you stating that the earth's climate is a closed
system. I never saw a retraction.
Do you still maintain that it is a closed system?