The Climate Change Fraud Unravels
b00 nz
4 Feb 2010
QUOTE: Jones and Wang are also thought to have neglected to consider the
movement of Chinese weather stations.
They failed as well to adjust for the heat-island effect in stations that
had been in rural regions but are now in urban areas.
QUOTE: It found that, far from being negligible, the urban heat phenomenon
was responsible for 40% of the warming seen in eastern China between 1951
and 2004
QUOTE: If the speculation that man is warming the planet through his
activities were indisputable fact, why did these researchers have to fudge
the numbers?
Why did they feel the need to crush dissent?
Not long ago, we were pestered almost daily with another global warming
scare.
But the weather has changed.
Now, it seems, each sunrise comes with fresh evidence that the scare is a
fraud.
The latest setback for global warm-mongers is a probe conducted by the
British Guardian newspaper, which discovered a prominent climate scientist
"sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work
was based."
The Guardian, which has a history of pumping the global warming scare,
looked over the leaked e-mail exchanges from the Climate Research Unit at
the University of East Anglia and "found evidence that a series of
measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that
documents relating to them could not be produced."
At the center is the familiar Phil Jones, the CRU director who's been
temporarily relieved of his duties.
He and the University at Albany's Wei-Chyung Wang, named as a collaborator
by the Guardian, are accused of making "apparent attempts to cover up
problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations."
These data, the Guardian reported Monday, "provide the first link between
the e-mail scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the IPCC, as
a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about
rapid global warming in recent decades."
Researchers apparently failed to provide as a matter of public record the
location history of 49 of the 84 Chinese weather stations used to generate
the data.
Jones and Wang are also thought to have neglected to consider the movement
of Chinese weather stations.
They failed as well to adjust for the heat-island effect in stations that
had been in rural regions but are now in urban areas.
"The story has a startling postscript," says the Guardian. "In 2008, Jones
prepared a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research re-examining
temperatures in eastern China. It found that, far from being negligible, the
urban heat phenomenon was responsible for 40% of the warming seen in eastern
China between 1951 and 2004."
A day later, the Guardian continued the serial reporting of its e-mail
probe, this time focusing on the researchers' efforts to suppress the work
of skeptics and critics.
Again, Jones plays a central role.
Fred Pearce wrote in Tuesday's edition that Jones "was regularly asked to
review papers and he sometimes wrote critical reviews that may have had the
effect of blackballing papers (criticizing) his work."
Jones also vowed to keep skeptical papers out of "the next IPCC report ...
even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"
Another "esearcher" Tom Wigley, suggested in 2005 that he and his colleagues
"could go through official" channels to oust a journal editor they believed
to be too willing to allow contrarian opinions to be published.
Two years earlier, Keith Briffa, a "scientist"at the CRU, told a colleague:
"Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for
rejecting" a paper that was unnamed.
If the speculation that man is warming the planet through his activities
were indisputable fact, why did these researchers have to fudge the numbers?
Why did they feel the need to crush dissent?
For those not keeping score at home, the result of the Guardian's e-mail
investigation is simply another ugly layer of deception stripped from the
carefully constructed global warming con.
In the last two weeks alone the public learned:
(1) that the UN claim that man-made climate change would melt Himalayan
glaciers by 2035 was fiction, the speculation of one man whose guess was
reported in a magazine then played as scientific fact;
(2) that federal researchers left out temperature data from cold regions;
and
(3) that the UN was wrong in its contention that "the rapidly rising costs"
of natural disasters since the 1970s is linked to global warming.
The climate change movement is losing its credibility at a pace much faster
than any warming it predicted.
A quick burnout would be an appropriate, and long overdue, ending.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=520057
Warmest Regards
Bon_0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
HD
"b00 nz" <q...@ppp.com> wrote in message news:4b6a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Why on earth would a communist government, or any government fudge the
numbers. when, as a result, they have to spent a lot of money to clean up
their pollution?
Are you fudging science for your own benefit? Are you a fanatical climate
change denier because of personal benefits? No one is fanatical like you
just for fun. How much money do you make keeping up the pollution?
leona...@gmail.com
>
> Why on earth would a communist government, or any government fudge the
> numbers. when, as a result, they have to spent a lot of money to clean up
> their pollution?
ø Who said it was the government??
ø CO2 is not pollution. It is an essential element
for life on this planet.
>
> Are you fudging science for your own benefit? Are you a fanatical climate
> change denier because of personal benefits? No one is fanatical like you
> just for fun. How much money do you make keeping up the pollution?
ø Get a life, Fool!!
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
b00 nz
"HD" <her...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:xxtan.5519$pv....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
It was the CRU which fudged the numbers courtesy of Jones and Co!
Orson Alexander
>
> Why on earth would a communist government, or any government fudge the
> numbers. when, as a result, they have to spent a lot of money to clean up
> their pollution?
Martin Durkin who did the anti-AGW fantasy movie "Global Warming
Swindle" is a devout Communist.
Bozo is one of his followers, which explains why he is a pathological
liar and Fascist propagandist. He's a fool who spends all day in
front of a keyboard parroting gibberish pretending it to be the truth.
Bozo would make a great Nazi but he's not intelligent enough and his
antics are too obvious.
My guess is that he collects welfare and never made anything of
himself in life.
What do you expect from morons who produce no evidence but hoot and
holler all day about great conspiracies? The imbeciles are
projecting their own sentiments unto those they see as "their
opponents", the scientific community, most large industries and of
course the world's democratically elected governments who see that AGW
is a threat.
Bozo and his fascists would prefer to see a dictatorship take control
and silence the science proving AGW in favor of their bizarre
ideology.
He's not a very intelligent person, is he? He has no thoughts of his
own and parrots the words of uncredentialed bloggers, most of whom are
anonymous. Not peer reviewed publications and hard science based on
location studies.
Mellakon
> Anyone interested in any serious debate would not be playing dumbassed
> little childish games would they? Why is it, if you AGW alarmist
> kooks had any kind of valid argument, that you feel the need to pull
> such stupid shit? Guess you really don't have anything valid to ad.
So, what you're saying is that you can't refute what he says so you are
attempting to change the subject. Talk about amateur and childish.
We have 36 national science academies, every scientific organization, over
90% of articles in scientific journals, and 97% of climate science
researchers. You have bloggers, right-wing columnists, and your own
paranoia.
Most right wing retards believe that it's a big socialist cabal under Al
Gore. And when you point out that most major corporations are endeavoring
to reduce their GHG emissions or the insurance industry (who most deniers
strongly endorse in US health care) they start yammering on about how
they're in on the great conspiracy as well.
Then they continue to cite fabrications from dubious, amateur websites
like "c3headlines", anonymous uncredentialed bloggers, crackpots, right
wing think tanks and retired scientists turned fossil fuel industry shills
for their "facts".
Even more hilarious, the majority of the scientists they cite never worked
in the field of climatology in the first place, so it's like citing the
opinion of your dentist for a heart condition.
Most of these idiots don't even go outside because they're so mentally
unstable.
There is no "Climategate". It's a bunch of crap
made up by deniers.
Arguments made by deniers and the facts countering
them:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm
Facts about the CRU hack (as opposed to the
fantasies being spread by the Coulter hack):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
The Earth IS still warming:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/
No, the data wasn't "destroyed":
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/14/3
What the stolen e-mails actually reveal:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
Another response to the over-hyped puffery of
"Climategate":
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-respond-to-
clim
ategate-controversy
------------------
http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/412728_joel30.html
Latest attempt to question climate change is junk
Last updated November 29, 2009 8:59 p.m. PT
By JOEL CONNELLY
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF
Computer hackers recently penetrated the server at the University of East
Anglia in Britain, and caught academics in the Climate Research Unit in
gossipy conversation about how to discredit global warming critics.
Right-wing media have extracted quotes, cried "Junk Science," jazzed up a
buzzword -- "Climategate" -- with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Washington
Times headlining an editorial: "Hiding evidence of global cooling."
It's a classic example of Junk Propaganda. The klutzy profs at East Anglia
have become devil figures in a canny disinformation campaign, directed
into an ideologues' echo chamber.
Or as Dr. James Hansen, who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Studies, told Newsweek, "The contrarians or deniers do not have a
scientific leg to stand on. Their aim is to win a public relations battle,
or at least get a draw, which may be enough to stymie the actions that are
needed to stabilize climate."
If you apply a critical eye or ear to FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, the Drudge
Report or the right-wing Daily Telegraph in Britain, you'll recognize a
strategy defined in a famous tobacco industry memo on how to discredit the
medical consensus that cigarettes cause lung cancer and emphysema:
"Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the
'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also
the means of establishing a controversy."
Of course, the evidence has continued to flow, even if bottled up on Fox
and belittled on Drudge.
This year will be one of the top five warmest years across the globe since
records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by Britain's
Met Office. Barring a very cold December, 2009 will be the fifth warmest
on record.
"The last 10 years have been in the top 15 warmest on record," the BBC
reported.
On this side of the Atlantic, researchers are reporting that climate
change is -- at least in Africa -- a major driver of armed conflict.
Future warming is predicted to increase the number of deaths in war.
The findings come in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Researchers used temperature databases for sub-Saharan Africa over a
20-year period to look for a connection between average warmth and lethal
conflict.
"Studies show that crop yields in the region are really sensitive to small
shifts in temperature, even of half a degree (Celsius) or so," research
leader Marshall Burke of the University of California, told the BBC.
"If the sub-Saharan climate continues to warm," he added, "and little is
done to help its countries better adapt to high temperatures, the human
costs are likely to be staggering."
The climate debate is curious.
In one corner, you have scientists working in the field -- the U.S.
Geological Survey measuring glaciers, NASA scientists recording satellite
images on how the Arctic icepack is shrinking, biologists measuring the
scope of forest-killing beetle infestations, and statisticians
establishing a connection between lack of rain, human displacement and
armed conflict.
Critics, by contrast, never go anywhere near the actual conditions that
scientists are measuring and recording.
They sit in New York TV studios, the Daily Telegraph's city room and
Drudge's Florida digs, and spout falsehoods: The distortions, in turn, are
eaten up by an audience that is sour, sedentary and suspicious of change.
The deniers, amazingly, are gaining traction.
Why? Part of the problem is that newspapers are contracting faster than
glaciers and polar icepacks.
"With budgets shrinking, many news organizations have relied on shortcuts
in covering disputes: Rather than devoting the time and resources
necessary to investigate competing claims, they commonly use the
'on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand' approach that can suggest a false
symmetry between the merits of differing viewpoints," former Vice
President Al Gore writes in his new book Our Choice.
In other words, a flack's sound bite gets equal play with a scientist's
findings.
The BBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., the Guardian --yes, a few news
organizations -- try to avoid shortcuts. But new media has not filled the
vacuum left by old media.
"There is as yet no standard Internet news model that throws off enough
revenue to support the experienced cadre of journalists who can pursue the
truth wherever it takes them," Gore said in an interview here earlier this
month.
Add that to a balkanized electronic media and the country -- not to
mention the world -- must suffer both dirty air and dirty airwaves. Is
this the legacy we leave our children and grandchildren?
Joel Connelly can be reached at 206-448-8160 or
joelco...@seattlepi.com.
� 1998-2009 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
=====
Thank God that there are still a handful of self taught experts like
you and the energy industry funded right wing think tanks who are on to
the big, secret plot by Al Gore, the legitimate science community,
President Bush, the national governments of the world and the
multinationals!!
They're obviously a bunch of Lefty Socialist Tree Huggers and they've even
got Bush, the US government and major multinational corporations
brainwashed because they say that it's happening too!!! There are dozens
of capitalist multinationals who have been hoodwinked by Gore's Godless
Socialist Scientists into committing tens of $millions to greenhouse gas
reduction!
Isn't it obvious that they're not as smart as you are? A jobless right
wing mental cripple with a drool cup.
Bush Admits to Role of Humans in Global Warming
By Caroline Daniel and Fiona Harvey
Financial Times
Thursday 07 July 2005
President George W. Bush yesterday acknowledged more openly than in the
past the role of human activity in causing global warming, as he
travelled to Scotland for the summit of the Group of Eight
industrialised nations.
"I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in
greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," he
said during a visit to Denmark en route to Gleneagles.
------
Largest corporations agree to cut global warming emissions
February 20, 2007
More than 100 top executives from the private sector and leaders of
international governmental and non-governmental organizations
unveileved a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. They said
governments need to take immediate steps to stop global warming.
"Failing to act now would lead to far higher economic and environmental
costs and greater risk of irreversible impacts," warned the Global
Roundtable on Climate Change in a statement issued Tuesday. "Long-term
success will require a concerted effort to de-carbonize the global
energy
system."
The Roundtable put forth a series of recommendations for world
governments to reduce the risk of climate change including setting
"scientifically informed" targets for global CO2 concentrations,
developing a carbon trading market, promoting energy efficiency and de-
carbonization through the increased used of renewable energy, providing
incentines to reduce deforestation and harmful land management
practices, implementing adaption strategies to prepare populations for
the impact of global change, and launching public awareness campaigns
to inform citizens of the risks of and solutions to climate change.
"Cost-efficient technologies exist today, and others could be developed
and deployed, to improve energy efficiency and to help reduce emissions
of CO2 and other GHGs in major sectors of the global economy," stated
the Roundtable. "Research indicates that heading off the very dangerous
risks associated with doubling pre-industrial atmospheric
concentrations of CO2, while an immense challenge, can be achieved at a
reasonable cost."
Alcoa, Ford Motor, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Toyota Motor North
America, and Wal-Mart are among the corporations that signed off on the
initiative.
With corporations now making up roughly two-thirds the world's 150
largest entities, the private sector is arguably as important as
governments in directing policy on climate change. This new initiative
will likely increase pressure on the world's largest polluters --
especially Europe and the United States -- to take action on the issue,
which could have a devastating economic impact. A study released in
October by the British government said that economic damage caused by
global warming could rival that of the Great Depression.
Atmopheric concentrations of carbon dioxide -- the principal greenhouse
gas produced by human activities -- currently stands at the highest
levels in at least 650,000 years according to research published in
2005. Most carbon emissions result from power generation, responsible
for more than 40 percent of energy-related emissions worldwide.
Overall, industry accounts for more than 18 percent of emissions,
transport 20 percent, and the residential and services sector 13
percent. The U.S. is the largest polluter, followed by China.
=====
Global Warming
What the science says...
The consensus position is generally defined as "most of the global warming
in recent decades can be attributed to human activities". There are
several ways you can approach the debate on scientific consensus.
Scientist roll call Much of the debate seems to consist of a show of hands
and parading of credentials. On the one hand, you have assorted scientists
as presented in the National Post Denier series. On the other side, you
have the IPCC stating anthropogenic emissions are the predominant cause of
global warming. If the IPCC is not your cup of tea, the following
scientific organisations also endorse the consensus:
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Environmental Protection Agency
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* American Meteorological Society
* The Royal Society of the UK
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* American Association for the Advancement of Science
Academies of Science from 19 countries
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the
consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the
consensus position:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academie des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as well
as several countries from the first list) also signed a joint statement
endorsing the IPCC consensus:
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Naomi Oreskes' survey of peer reviewed scientific literature However, it's
more relevant to examine peer reviewed journals - scientists can have
their opinions but they need to back it up with empirical evidence and
research that survives the peer review process. A survey of all peer
reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published
between 1993 and 2008 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus
position that global warming is man caused. 85% of the papers agreed with
the consensus position while 15% made no comment either way (eg - focused
on methods or paleoclimate analysis).
Klaus-Martin Schulte's list of studies rejecting the consensus That is not
to say there are no studies that reject the consensus position.
Klaus-Martin Schulte surveyed peer reviewed abstracts from 2004 to
February 2007 and claims 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus position. In
these cases, it's instructive to read the studies to see whether they
actually do refute the consensus and if so, what their arguments are.
Judge the science, not the person Ultimately what matters is what a person
says, not who says it (that's not to say there's people I respect and pay
attention to but I don't automatically agree with everything they might
say). In the global warming debate, there are smart people on both sides
subscribing to polar opposite views - intelligence does not always equate
to correctness. This is a debate where people often form a view then
muster up the arguments (valid or not) to back up their preconception. So
note the credentials but ultimately, make your judgements based on the
scientific arguments. ---------------
What the science says...
1970's ice age predictions were predominantly media based with the
majority of scientific papers predicting warming.
The notion that the 1970s scientific consensus was for impending
global cooling is incorrect. In actuality, there were significantly
more papers in the 1970s predicting warming than cooling.
Scientific studies in the 1970's re global cooling
Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press
(eg - Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far
as peer reviewed scientific papers in the 1970s, very few papers (7
in
total) predicted global cooling. Significantly more papers (42 in
total) predicted global warming due to CO2. More on 1970s science...
Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling
(blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers
than warming papers (Peterson 2008).
Rasool and Schneider's ice age "projection"
The main study cited by skeptics is Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and
Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate (Rasool 1971).
The paper doesn't actually predict an ice age. Instead, it projects a
possible scenario - if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 times then
sustained those levels for several years, it may trigger an ice age.
Historically, what happened was aerosol levels fell. While it's
unclear whether Rasool's calculations re aerosol cooling were
accurate, one inaccuracy was they underestimated climate's
sensitivity
to CO2 by a factor of 3.
In the decades since their 1971 paper, many studies constraining
climate sensitivity calculate that if atmospheric CO2 was doubled,
global temperatures would rise around 3�C. These studies employ
different methods (modelling, calculations from empirical
observations) looking at different time periods (the 20th century,
the
Holocene, past ice ages), different aspects of climate (surface
temperature, mid-tropospheric temperature, ocean heat intake) and
response to different forcings (volcanic, CO2, solar). More on
climate
sensitivity...
National Academy of Sciences - now and then
The most comprehensive study on the subject (and the closest thing to
a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy
of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion
was "�we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate
machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental
understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate�"
Contrast this with the US National Academy of Science's current
position: "there is now strong evidence that significant global
warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in
recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The
scientific
understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify
nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the
Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany,
India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.
Other indications of current consensus
Other scientific bodies that have released statements endorsing
anthropogenic global warming include:
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Environmental Protection Agency
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* American Meteorological Society
* The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) draws upon the work of
over 850 peer reviewed studies
None of these bodies (at least the ones that existed back then)
endorsed ice age predictions in the 70s. More on scientific
consensus...
So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a
handful of studies, even then outweighed by global warming
predictions. Today, an avalanche of studies and overwhelming
scientific consensus endorse anthropogenic global warming. To compare
cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both
inappropriate and misleading.
leona...@gmail.com
ø And what peer reviewed papers have your
name on them?.
None???? then STFU.
nzoo b
"Mellakon" <mellak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D15C8AF...@194.177.98.144...
> First Post wrote in alt.global-warming:
>
>> Anyone interested in any serious debate would not be playing dumbassed
>> little childish games would they? Why is it, if you AGW alarmist
>> kooks had any kind of valid argument, that you feel the need to pull
>> such stupid shit? Guess you really don't have anything valid to ad.
>
> So, what you're saying is that you can't refute what he says so you are
> attempting to change the subject. Talk about amateur and childish.
>
> We have 36 national science academies, every scientific organization, over
> 90% of articles in scientific journals, and 97% of climate science
> researchers.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but true science is not democratic!
"To defeat relativity one does not need the word of 100 scientists, just one
fact." Albert Einstein
Orion
> "Mellakon" <mellakon8...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9D15C8AF...@194.177.98.144...
>
> > First Post wrote in alt.global-warming:
>
> >> Anyone interested in any serious debate would not be playing dumbassed
> >> little childish games would they? Why is it, if you AGW alarmist
> >> kooks had any kind of valid argument, that you feel the need to pull
> >> such stupid shit? Guess you really don't have anything valid to ad.
>
> > So, what you're saying is that you can't refute what he says so you are
> > attempting to change the subject. Talk about amateur and childish.
>
> > We have 36 national science academies, every scientific organization, over
> > 90% of articles in scientific journals, and 97% of climate science
> > researchers.
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but true science is not democratic!
>
As usual, no science and no refutation.
Limbaugh Whisperer
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but true science is not democratic!
So, what you're implying is that if a handful of kooks still maintain that
tobacco smoke is harmless, the debate must still be raging about whether it
is or not.
The logic of the defeated.
Orion
wrote:
The argument of a child. From the senile old fool who never provides
proof of his contentions.
I can see why you snipped the balance of the information he posted, it
was very damaging to you and there's no way you can refute it.
Limbaugh Whisperer
> And what peer reviewed papers have your
> name on them?.
Insane old fool Leonard Pulver believes his opinions transcend science.
That's why he's openly ridiculed.
There are three types of people that you can not talk into behaving well.
The stupid, the rightist religious fanatic, and the evil rightist.
1-The right wing stupid aren't smart enough to follow the logic of what you
say.
You have to tell them what is right in very simple terms. If they don't
agree, then you'll never be able to change their mind.
2- the right wing religious fanatic If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that religious belief even if it means
their death."
3-
There is no way to reform evil Not in a million years. There is no way to
convince the right wing terrorists, anti-science anthropogenic global
warming deniers, serial killers, right wing paedophiles, and predators to
change their evil ways.
They knew what they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made them more careful in how they
went about performing their evil acts.
Decrepit old Leonard is all three of the above.
Amhearst
>
> When you come at someone with an argument and make stupid assed little
> changes in your header so their respondiong arguments may not be seen
> or read in the appropriate groups then that makes you a piece of shit
> that obviously has nothing valid to argue.
You're nothing but a whiney little self appointed net cop who can't stick to
the issues or refute any arguments with data or science.
How sad. Looks like you lose.
Amhearst
> Well, if you don;t really want to see any replies to your garbage then
> why post it in the first place. You obviously don't or you wouldn;t
> constantly try to get replies sent off to never never land.
> No logical purpose in it other than to simply be an asshole.
> You have yet to argue any point regarding your religious belief in
> something not proven and do nothing but call people names like a
> little sissy boy.
> How pathetic it must be to be you.
>
You're nothing but a waste of time. You offer nothing.
Try again when you have some substance.
*plonk*
HD
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:07ad49ce-6e76-4485...@q6g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 4, 1:10 am, "HD" <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> Why on earth would a communist government, or any government fudge the
> numbers. when, as a result, they have to spent a lot of money to clean up
> their pollution?
� Who said it was the government??
� CO2 is not pollution. It is an essential element
for life on this planet.
So is salt. Go and eat a few kilos.
>
> Are you fudging science for your own benefit? Are you a fanatical climate
> change denier because of personal benefits? No one is fanatical like you
> just for fun. How much money do you make keeping up the pollution?
� Get a life, Fool!!
Got money invested in coal mining?
� �
nzoo b
>
> <leona...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:07ad49ce-6e76-4485...@q6g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 4, 1:10 am, "HD" <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Why on earth would a communist government, or any government fudge the
>> numbers. when, as a result, they have to spent a lot of money to clean up
>> their pollution?
>
>
> � CO2 is not pollution. It is an essential element
> for life on this planet.
>
>
> So is salt. Go and eat a few kilos.
>
And so is water.
Too much water kills.
So, by your logic, water is a pollutant!
Warmest Regards
Bon_0
"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
>>
>> Are you fudging science for your own benefit? Are you a fanatical climate
>> change denier because of personal benefits? No one is fanatical like you
>> just for fun. How much money do you make keeping up the pollution?
>
> � Get a life, Fool!!
>
>
> Got money invested in coal mining?
>
>
>
> � �
nzoo b
> news:07ad49ce-6e76-4485...@q6g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 4, 1:10 am, "HD" <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Why on earth would a communist government, or any government fudge the
>> numbers. when, as a result, they have to spent a lot of money to clean up
>> their pollution?
>
>
> � CO2 is not pollution. It is an essential element
> for life on this planet.
>
>
> So is salt. Go and eat a few kilos.
>
And so is water.
Too much water kills.
So, by your logic, water is a pollutant!
Warmest Regards
Bon_0
"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
>>
>> Are you fudging science for your own benefit? Are you a fanatical climate
>> change denier because of personal benefits? No one is fanatical like you
>> just for fun. How much money do you make keeping up the pollution?
>
> � Get a life, Fool!!
>
>
> Got money invested in coal mining?
>
>
>
> � �
HD
"nzoo b" <f...@rrr.com> wrote in message news:4b6b8156$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "HD" <her...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:V6Lan.5682$pv....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> <leona...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:07ad49ce-6e76-4485...@q6g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 4, 1:10 am, "HD" <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why on earth would a communist government, or any government fudge the
>>> numbers. when, as a result, they have to spent a lot of money to clean
>>> up
>>> their pollution?
>>
>> � Who said it was the government??
>>
>> � CO2 is not pollution. It is an essential element
>> for life on this planet.
>>
>>
>> So is salt. Go and eat a few kilos.
>>
>
>
>
> And so is water.
> Too much water kills.
> So, by your logic, water is a pollutant!
Yes
>
>
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> Bon_0
>
> "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
>
>
>>>
>>> Are you fudging science for your own benefit? Are you a fanatical
>>> climate
>>> change denier because of personal benefits? No one is fanatical like you
>>> just for fun. How much money do you make keeping up the pollution?
>>
>> � Get a life, Fool!!
>>
>>
>> Got money invested in coal mining?
>>
>>
>>
>> - -
HD
"nzoo b" <f...@rrr.com> wrote in message news:4b6b815f$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "HD" <her...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:V6Lan.5682$pv....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> <leona...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:07ad49ce-6e76-4485...@q6g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 4, 1:10 am, "HD" <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why on earth would a communist government, or any government fudge the
>>> numbers. when, as a result, they have to spent a lot of money to clean
>>> up
>>> their pollution?
>>
>> � Who said it was the government??
>>
>> � CO2 is not pollution. It is an essential element
>> for life on this planet.
>>
>>
>> So is salt. Go and eat a few kilos.
>>
>
>
>
> And so is water.
> Too much water kills.
> So, by your logic, water is a pollutant!
>
>
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> Bon_0
>
> "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
One out of tens of thousands scientists.
Professor of Geology?
Isn't mining of special interest to them?
>
>
>>>
>>> Are you fudging science for your own benefit? Are you a fanatical
>>> climate
>>> change denier because of personal benefits? No one is fanatical like you
>>> just for fun. How much money do you make keeping up the pollution?
>>
>> � Get a life, Fool!!
>>
>>
>> Got money invested in coal mining?
>>
>>
>>
>> - -
nzoo b
Not necessarily.
"Geology" means a study of the earth.
Warmest Regards
Bon_0
"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
>>
>>>>
nzoo b
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d99bd2b1-915b-4947...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 4, 8:05 pm, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
wrote:
> On 5 Feb 2010 01:44:35 +0100, Mellakon <mellakon8...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >First Post wrote in alt.global-warming:
>
> >> Anyone interested in any serious debate would not be playing dumbassed
> >> little childish games would they? Why is it, if you AGW alarmist
> >> kooks had any kind of valid argument, that you feel the need to pull
> >> such stupid shit? Guess you really don't have anything valid to ad.
>
> >So, what you're saying is that you can't refute what he says so you are
> >attempting to change the subject. Talk about amateur and childish.
>
> >We have 36 national science academies, every scientific organization,
> >over
> >90% of articles in scientific journals, and 97% of climate science
> >researchers. You have bloggers, right-wing columnists, and your own
> >paranoia.
>
> When you come at someone with an argument and make stupid assed little
> changes in your header so their respondiong arguments may not be seen
> or read in the appropriate groups then that makes you a piece of shit
> argument other than the same old ad hominem attacks that you all
> launch into when questioned but you have no problem with them.
> Thus making you a complete hypocrite. Therefore you're nothing more
> than two stupid assed trolls in a pod.
>
> BTW all of your referencves that you proudly proclaim you have have
> all been guilty of using fudged data, proven and even admitted in some
> cases, manipulated data and outright false data in order to reach
> their so called imperical conclusions. But even so. AGW is still
> just a theory and nothing more. If not then quote the law of
> Anthropogenic Global Warming.
>
> And still, you fail to answer the question as to why play all of the
> trollish little games in silly assed attempts to distract and cover up
> if your beliefs are so undeniably true?
>
> >{original newsgroups restored}
So we have an idiot here claiming all the world's scientists are in a
giant conspiracy.
======================================
These "scientists" are in a giant conspiracy!
Would You Buy A Used Car From These So-Called "Scientists"?
Our gullible alarmist friends have obviously fallen for this scam hook,
line, and sinker!
First we had the IPCC report "The Science of Climate Change 1995", where
lead auther Benjamin D. Santer removed the following conclusions made by
genuine scientists, and without the scientists being made aware of this
change.
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases in
greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate
change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely
to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability
of the climate system are reduced."
Then we have some choice quotes from so-called "consensus scientists".
"Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to
beat the crap out of him."
Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
[Referring to global warming skeptic Pat Michaels]
"The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been
after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom
of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send to anyone."
Phil Jones email, Feb 2 2005
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report, Kevin and
I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the
peer-review literature is!"
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
[cutting skeptical scientists out of an official UN report]
"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 should be even more warming... the
data are surely wrong".
Kevin Trenberth, Climatologist, US Centre for Atmospheric Research
"...If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the
science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't
being political, it is being selfish. "
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
"We have to get rid of the Medi�val Warm Period" Confided to geophysicist
David Deming by the IPCC, 1995
[Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck, which Prof. Deming didn't
deny in an email response, who would later also serve as an IPCC lead
author.]
"We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data
available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
"I tried the same run [Fourier Transform] on the CRU global temperature set.
Even though CRU must be highly smoothed by the time all the averages are
worked out, the 11-year pulse is still there, albeit about half the size of
Sydney's."
[E-mail from Dr Daly 9 August 1996. Dr Daly uncovered an eleven-year signal
in the temperature data set from the island of Tasmania. It is clear from
the tone of his e-mail that he knows this is not welcome news.]
"I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they
were talking about their role as lead authors for the IPCC. And they were
talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the
US would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol."
Dr John Christy, University of Alabama, Huntsville on CNN May 2 2007.
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements,
and make little mention of any doubts we might have." Professor Stephen
Schneider
"Humans need a common motivation ... either a real one or else one invented
for the purpose. ... In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages,
famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by
human intervention so the real enemy then, is humanity itself." Club of Rome
declaration
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is
true.... You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth
and fund generating machine." Paul Watson, Co-Founder Greenpeace, Forbes,
Nov. 1991
Now what conclusion would a rational and sceptical person come to?
Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman
of the George C. Marshall Institute, summed it up nicely after seeing the
changes made to the IPCC report.
"In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community,
including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and
the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing
corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC
report."