Hackers Catch Prove Global Warming Fraud
Marvin the Martian
gotten into their so called Climate "Research" Unit's servers and
downloaded e-mails and documents that PROVE that they are liars and
frauds that distort the data to fit their man made global warming lies.
Jones himself admits that the documents that were downloaded were his!
Even as one of his e-mails he describes a "trick" he is using to change
the data to support the Anthropogenic global warming lies. Jones boldly
excuses this damning evidence by saying that lay people aren't able to
understand what he said.
This utterly disgraced "university" scrambles to call the hack a
"criminal act", but ignore their own FRAUD against humanity. They have NO
SHAME.
Meanwhile, other conspirators in this global FRAUD are meeting in
Copenhagen. Hopefully, the world court will capture them and put them on
trial for crimes against humanity and trillion dollar fraud.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-
how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/
http://www.itproportal.com/security/news/article/2009/11/21/hackers-
target-east-anglia-university-debunk-global-warming/
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRU-update
Sam Wormley
Hey Marvin, can you articulate what the documents say?
Marvin the Martian
Hey Wormley....
You can't reply to the science and you can't deny these frauds lied.
You backed these frauds and liars because you didn't know science well
enough, and didn't have the moral courage of conviction, to speak the
truth about their lies. That, and you wanted to bask in their "reflected
glory" by nodding your head a lot and mindlessly agreeing with them.
Now their fraud is exposed, their bogus data manipulation to support
their conclusions is known to the world, and the reflection you share is
their disgrace.
7
Physicists in my opinion should be stubbornly dismissive of holowarmers
and robustly defend their science against psuedo scientists and fakers.
Marvin the Martian
> Physicists in my opinion should be stubbornly dismissive of holowarmers
> and robustly defend their science against psuedo scientists and fakers.
I agree. They don't even have a theory at this point. They have a
hypothesis that failed to predict.
I also think too many people are getting degrees for nodding their heads
in agreement with their professors.
If you've never said to your professor "you're wrong" and told him why
he's wrong, you're not thinking.
rabid_fan
>
> Physicists in my opinion should be stubbornly dismissive of holowarmers
> and robustly defend their science against psuedo scientists and fakers.
Physicists, as well as other categories of scientific professionals,
should directly educate the public rather than rely upon incompetent
and tendentious journalists to disseminate critical information.
Sam Wormley
You are out of control, Marvin! Can you articulate what the documents say?
Marvin the Martian
Sadly, the public is stupid, especially when it comes to science.
For example, around here only 45% of the high school students are
familiar with basic science. No surprise since most public school
teachers are pig ignorant about science and teach basic witchcraft in
their "science" classes.
Once, when I was an TA, I had to "teach" some lower division undergrads
how to calculate the electric field on the axis of a loop of charge. I
started with a vector integral. They didn't know that. So I tried a
vector integral with symmetry to simplify it. They didn't know that. Then
I tried a simple symmetry argument. They didn't know that, either. At
that point, I knew they were bs-ing me and they were just lazy bastards
and bastardettes who expected to be spoon feed some brand of physics lite
that didn't make them think, and told them I couldn't explain it to them
because they didn't have the background to do the problem.
I think Carl Sagan tried to simply physics, but too much of his political
bias got in the way. His "nuclear winter" story was pure debunked
bullshit and he knew better. He was just trying to scare people.
Most popular physics books are not worth reading, and screw people up
more than they teach.
The reason why journalist do it is because real scientist have too much
pride than to sink down to the level of the average scientifically
ignorant citizen. There are just some things a real scientist won't do.
Now a journalist, on the other hand...
And look at how many idiots swallowed the global warming fraud. They
STILL cling to it, even though it is a PROVEN fraud.
More education, and asking questions, is the answer.
Sam Wormley
Can understand the science?
Can you understand the science, Marvin?
BDR-529
No he can't. McIntyre was suddenly able to show a hockeystick on the
audit, but it didn't have the last 30 years polished up. There is no
relation to the EOF detrending error he was blindly focusing on. Tree
ring scientists are just a bunch of little children.
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
jmfbahciv
They should stop doing their work? Then the holowarmers acheive their
goal (which is production prevention).
/BAH
Marvin the Martian
There was no "hockey stick" temperature increase in the real world, and
we didn't burn up like the frauds said we would back in the 1990s.
Keep lying, maybe some of the stupid stooges who believe this crap will
remain true to the faith. :-D LOL.
AGW is going into the trash bin along with the flat earth and N-rays.
Marvin the Martian
> Can understand the science?
>
> Can you understand the science, Marvin?
Yes. I explained some of the many reasons why global warming should be
obvious bullshit to any real scientist.
1) The Chemistry of equilibrium said we didn't put the CO2 there.
2) "Correlation proves causation" is a fallacy.
3) Appeal to consensus is a fallacy.
4) Appeal to authority is a fallacy.
5) There is a stronger correlation to solar cycle, and there is NO WAY
CO2 can be a cause of solar cycle. It MUST be an effect to a common cause.
6) Svensmark proved the common cause in two famous papers. His hypothesis
predicted, and was consistent with the last 4.5 BILLION years of climate
data.
Those were just some of the points I hit on. Posers pretending to be
scientist like yourself only come back with stupid snide remarks, while
running away from the scientific issues.
When faced with the smoking gun proving it was all a fraud, all you can
do is cast some insults to defend this stupid lie.
Sam Wormley
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:34:24 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>
>> Can understand the science?
>>
>> Can you understand the science, Marvin?
>
> Yes. I explained some of the many reasons why global warming should be
> obvious bullshit to any real scientist.
>
The greenhouse gas effect of CO2, O3, CH4, H2O and N2O have been
known for a long time.
You really ought to start taking global climate change seriously,
Marvin. Here is a resource for you to look at.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
Also from today's meeting I attended: Presentation of Dr. Eugene S. Takle’s
White Paper, “Assessment of Potential Impacts of Climate Changes on Iowa
Using Current Trends and Future Projections”.
Bernd Felsche
>Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> Yes. I explained some of the many reasons why global warming should be
>> obvious bullshit to any real scientist.
> The greenhouse gas effect of CO2, O3, CH4, H2O and N2O have been
> known for a long time.
> You really ought to start taking global climate change seriously,
> Marvin. Here is a resource for you to look at.
> http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
Seriously?
From 1079108576.txt of the leaked FOIA emails:
In 2004
> Chick Keller wrote:
...
>> I also think people need to come to understand that the
>> scientific uncertainties work both ways. We don't
>> understand cloud feedbacks. We don't understand air-sea
>> interactions. We don't understand aerosol indirect
>> effects. The list is long. ...
1255523796.txt 14 Oct 2009
Kevin Trenberth:
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are
no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether
clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can
not account for what is happening in the climate system
makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!
It is a travesty!
1255530325.txt 14 Oct 2009
Michael Mann responding:
Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I
sent shows, we can easily account for the observed surface
cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in the
CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within
it). So in that sense, we can "explain" it. But this raises
the interesting question, is there something going on here
w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with
the modes of internal variability that leads to similar
temporary cooling periods within the models. I'm not sure
that this has been addressed--has it?
1255532032.txt 14 Oct 2009
From: Michael Mann <ma...@meteo.psu.edu>
To: Kevin Trenberth <tren...@ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
thanks Kevin, yes, it's a matter of what question one is
asking. to argue that the observed global mean temperature
anomalies of the past decade falsifies the model projections
of global mean temperature change, as contrarians have been
fond of claiming, is clearly wrong. but that doesn't mean we
can explain exactly what's going on. there is always the
danger of falling a bit into the "we don't know everything,
so we know nothing" fallacy. hence, I wanted to try to
clarify where we all agree, and where there may be
disagreement,
mike
On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:36 AM,
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Mike
Here are some of the issues as I see them:
Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation.
What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go? We
know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and
a discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El
Nino, but is the observing system sufficient to track it?
Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are
major changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with
ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on land during La Nina
(more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change
overall (changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra
rain on land means a lot more heat goes into evaporation
rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land
temps down: and should generate cloud. But the resulting
evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and
should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track
it with CERES data. The CERES data are unfortunately
wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are
also lacking although some of that may be related to the
ocean current changes and burying heat at depth where it is
not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes
back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.
Kevin
1255550975.txt 14 Oct 2009
Tom Wigley:
Kevin,
I didn't mean to offend you. But what you said was "we can't
account for the lack of warming at the moment". Now you say
"we are no where close to knowing where energy is going". In
my eyes these are two different things -- the second relates
to our level of understanding, and I agree that this is
still lacking.
Well, as long as "the science is settled".
"Travesty" is too flattering a word.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly
/ \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx
Sam Wormley
What does the real science say, Bernd?
I take it you hadn't heard--Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are
unique within the past 200,000 years.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, Neal Micheluttie,
Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander
P. Wolfec
Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains
largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we
present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the
past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on
recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest
stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early
Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e)
were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or
exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the
past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature,
lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In
recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern
and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural Variation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the
climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to
do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem
has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different
from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:34:24 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Can understand the science?
>>>
>>> Can you understand the science, Marvin?
>>
>> Yes. I explained some of the many reasons why global warming should be
>> obvious bullshit to any real scientist.
>>
>>
> The greenhouse gas effect of CO2, O3, CH4, H2O and N2O have been
> known for a long time.
And it has been known a long time that of those, only H2O has any
significant greenhouse potential. The others add trivial amounts of
warming.
It's like saying that because Sodium is paramagnetic, it clings to a
common electromagnet. No. This is non-science. Physics deals with
numbers. Frauds deal in lies, distortions and half truths.
> You really ought to start taking global climate change seriously,
> Marvin. Here is a resource for you to look at.
> http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
>
> Also from today's meeting I attended: Presentation of Dr. Eugene S.
> Takle’s White Paper, “Assessment of Potential Impacts of Climate
> Changes on Iowa Using Current Trends and Future Projections”.
Gibberish. The latter is one big "appeal to effects" fallacy based on a
lie.
Sam Wormley
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:16:54 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:34:24 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Can understand the science?
>>>>
>>>> Can you understand the science, Marvin?
>>> Yes. I explained some of the many reasons why global warming should be
>>> obvious bullshit to any real scientist.
>>>
>>>
>> The greenhouse gas effect of CO2, O3, CH4, H2O and N2O have been
>> known for a long time.
>
> And it has been known a long time that of those, only H2O has any
> significant greenhouse potential. The others add trivial amounts of
> warming.
>
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Forcing Functions
http://www.realclimate.org/images/forcing_1750-2000-toppanel.jpg
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/
Marvin the Martian
You're being stupid on purpose. First, you're ignoring the FACT that
water vapor, not CO2, is the major Greenhouse gas and secondly you're
trying to change the subject using discredited sources.
I have to admit, you're ever hopeful in making your repetitive, stupid
posts. If you want to convince people other than yourself, you're going
to have to address their concerns instead of ignoring them and acting
like a pompous ass by posing as a scientist.
Sam Wormley
One more time Marvin---You need to wake up!
1. Global Warming is happening.
2. Normally we should be cooling and we are not because of
an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. The CO2 humans
are dumping into the atmosphere, cannot be denied. The warming
from CO2 is driving more moisture into the atmosphere. Higher
night time dew points... less nighttime cooling.
Pretty obvious in Iowa. The increase moisture results in
o cooler Summer Highs
o Warmer Summer Lows
o increased rainfall
o increased flooding (economic disaster
$20 billion in the Cedar Rapids IA area)
o greater water run-off
Here's some data from Iowa State
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html
More from University of Iowa
http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/faculty-staff/profile-directory/cee/schnoor_j.php
Marvin, instead of playing this nay-sayer's horse shit game on USENET,
you ought to be taking Global Climate Change seriously. What the hell
is your excuse!
Benj
Sam Wormley wrote:
> > You're being stupid on purpose. First, you're ignoring the FACT that
> > water vapor, not CO2, is the major Greenhouse gas and secondly you're
> > trying to change the subject using discredited sources.
> >
> > I have to admit, you're ever hopeful in making your repetitive, stupid
> > posts. If you want to convince people other than yourself, you're going
> > to have to address their concerns instead of ignoring them and acting
> > like a pompous ass by posing as a scientist.
>
>
> One more time Marvin---You need to wake up!
One more time, Sam the Sham - you need to stop lying.
> 1. Global Warming is happening.
A statement that seems more or less true to some degree. The ice age
has definitely ended. Did you get the memo?
> 2. Normally we should be cooling and we are not because of
> an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. The CO2 humans
> are dumping into the atmosphere, cannot be denied. The warming
> from CO2 is driving more moisture into the atmosphere. Higher
> night time dew points... less nighttime cooling.
This is a complete lie which has reversed the causality between CO2
and H2O. Higher ocean temperatures (Ice age is over, remember?) drive
BOTH H2O and CO2 into the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 dumped by
humans is minuscule compared to the total. The effect of CO2 as a
greenhouse gas is negligible compared to water vapor. Your whole
argument is a pack of prevarications soaring like Kilimanjaro.
> Marvin, instead of playing this nay-sayer's horse shit game on USENET,
> you ought to be taking Global Climate Change seriously. What the hell
> is your excuse!
Sam, instead of obfuscating the true causes of climate change and
working to direct money and effort AWAY from solving the TRUE problems
of climate change and instead working to WASTE that money on
irrelevant and ineffective "cures", you should be trying to solve REAL
problems with REAL answers before it's too late. You and those like
you are endangering us all for a mere fistful of dollars. Didn't you
notice you live on the same planet we do? You think you have a ticket
to Mars to use once your frauds prove ineffective? What the hell is
your excuse?
Silly Shill.
Marvin the Martian
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> > You're being stupid on purpose. First, you're ignoring the FACT that
>> > water vapor, not CO2, is the major Greenhouse gas and secondly you're
>> > trying to change the subject using discredited sources.
>> >
>> > I have to admit, you're ever hopeful in making your repetitive,
>> > stupid posts. If you want to convince people other than yourself,
>> > you're going to have to address their concerns instead of ignoring
>> > them and acting like a pompous ass by posing as a scientist.
>>
>>
>> One more time Marvin---You need to wake up!
>
> One more time, Sam the Sham - you need to stop lying.
>
>> 1. Global Warming is happening.
>
> A statement that seems more or less true to some degree. The ice age has
> definitely ended. Did you get the memo?
I've explained to Wormley that the glaciers have been retreating for the
last 25 thousand years, and the rate is not constant. He ignores that. He
ignores anything and everything that doesn't agree with his religion.
>> 2. Normally we should be cooling and we are not because of
>> an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. The CO2 humans are
>> dumping into the atmosphere, cannot be denied. The warming from
>> CO2 is driving more moisture into the atmosphere. Higher night
>> time dew points... less nighttime cooling.
>
> This is a complete lie which has reversed the causality between CO2 and
> H2O. Higher ocean temperatures (Ice age is over, remember?) drive BOTH
> H2O and CO2 into the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 dumped by humans is
> minuscule compared to the total. The effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas
> is negligible compared to water vapor. Your whole argument is a pack of
> prevarications soaring like Kilimanjaro.
>
>> Marvin, instead of playing this nay-sayer's horse shit game on
>> USENET, you ought to be taking Global Climate Change seriously. What
>> the hell is your excuse!
>
> Sam, instead of obfuscating the true causes of climate change and
> working to direct money and effort AWAY from solving the TRUE problems
> of climate change and instead working to WASTE that money on irrelevant
> and ineffective "cures", you should be trying to solve REAL problems
> with REAL answers before it's too late. You and those like you are
> endangering us all for a mere fistful of dollars. Didn't you notice you
> live on the same planet we do? You think you have a ticket to Mars to
> use once your frauds prove ineffective? What the hell is your excuse?
>
> Silly Shill.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't want Wormley to be part of any discussion that
needed rational consideration of ALL the data.
Sam Wormley
Let me put you onto some better data, Marvin. I wouldn't want you to
give up on the real data confirming global warming.
Cheers!
Climate Data
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Data Sources
Filed under: Climate Science — group @ 27 November 2009
This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code
and data related to climate science. Please keep us informed of any things we might have
missed, or any updates to the links that are needed.
Climate data (raw)
Climate data (processed)
Paleo-data
Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output
Large-scale model (GCM) output
Model codes (GCMs)
Model codes (other)
Data Visualisation and Analysis
Master Repositories of climate and other Earth Science data
Climate data (raw)
GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the
world, temperature and precipitation)
USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1 and v.2)
Antarctic weather stations
European weather stations (ECA)
Satellite feeds (AMSU, SORCE (Solar irradiance), NASA A-train)
Tide Gauges (Proudman Oceanographic Lab)
World Glacier Monitoring Service
Argo float data
Climate data (processed)
Surface temperature anomalies (GISTEMP, HadCRU, NOAA NCDC)
Satellite temperatures (MSU) (UAH, RSS)
Sea surface temperatures (Reynolds et al, OI)
Stratospheric temperature
Sea ice (Cryosphere Today, NSIDC, JAXA, Bremen, Arctic-Roos, DMI)
Radiosondes (RAOBCORE, HadAT, U. Wyoming, RATPAC, IUK, Sterin (CDIAC), Angell (CDIAC) )
Cloud and radiation products (ISCCP, CERES-ERBE)
Sea level (U. Colorado)
Aerosols (AEROCOM, GACP)
Greenhouse Gases (AGGI at NOAA, CO2 Mauna Loa, World Data Center for Greenhouse Gases)
AHVRR data as used in Steig et al (2009)
Snow Cover (Rutgers)
GLIMS glacier database
Ocean Heat Content(NODC)
Paleo-data
NOAA Paleoclimate
Pangaea
GRIP/NGRIP Ice cores (Denmark)
GISP2 (note that the age model has been updated)
National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC)
Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
Reconstructions index and data (NOAA)
Mann et al (2008) (also here, Mann et al (2009))
Kaufmann et al (2009)
Wahl and Ammann (2006)
Mann et al (1998/1999)
Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output
These are weather models which have the real world observations assimilated into the
solution to provide a ‘best guess’ of the evolution of weather over time (although
pre-satellite era estimates (before 1979) are less accurate).
ERA40 (1957-2001, from ECMWF)
ERA-Interim (1989 – present, ECMWF’s latest project)
NCEP (1948-present, NOAA), NCEP-2
MERRA NASA GSFC
JRA-25 (1979-2004, Japanese Met. Agency)
North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR)
Large-scale model (GCM) output
These is output from the large scale global models used to assess climate change in the
past, and make projections for the future. Some of this output is also available via the
Data Visualisation tools linked below.
CMIP3 output (~20 models, as used by IPCC AR4) at PCMDI
GISS ModelE output (includes AR4 output as well as more specific experiments)
GFDL Model output
Model codes (GCMs)
Downloadable codes for some of the GCMs.
GISS ModelE (AR4 version, current snapshot)
NCAR CCSM(Version 3.0, CCM3 (older vintage))
EdGCM Windows based version of an older GISS model.
Uni. Hamburg (SAM, PUMA and PLASIM)
NEMO Ocean Model
GFDL Models
MIT GCM
Model codes (other)
This category include links to analysis tools, simpler models or models focussed on more
specific issues.
Rahmstorf (2007) Sea Level Rise Code
ModTran (atmospheric radiation calculations and visualisations)
Various climate-related online models (David Archer)
CliMT a Python-based software component toolkit
Pyclimate Python tools for climate analysis
CDAT Tools for analysing climate data in netcdf format (PCMDI)
RegEM (Tapio Schneider)
Time series analysis (MTM-SVD, SSA-MTM toolkit, Mann and Lees (1996))
Data Visualisation and Analysis
These sites include some of the above data (as well as other sources) in an easier to
handle form.
ClimateExplorer (KNMI)
Dapper (PMEL, NOAA)
Ingrid (IRI/LDEO Climate data library)
Giovanni (GSFC)
Wood for Trees: Interactive graphics (temperatures)
IPCC Data Visualisations
Master Repositories of Climate Data
Much bigger indexes of data sources:
Global Change Master Directory (GSFC)
PAGES data portal
NCDC (National Climate Data Center)
IPCC Data
CRU Data holdings
Hadley Centre Observational holdings
Comments Off
Sam Wormley
Sam Wormley
Climate Data
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Hey Marvin--You need to start taking global climate change seriously.
Michael Dobony
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_weighting_functions
Very interesting info from strictly a methodology point of view. Why are
the polar regions eliminated? Why are there weighted (altered) numbers?
There are multiple climate cycles, one at about 400 years and another at a
few thousand years. Can you predict the running pace of a person at 40 if
you measure them at age 5 and again at 15? NO! That is totally an
illegitimate use of statistics. Yet predictions are made off of 30 years of
a 400 year cycle? That is an absolute abuse of the use of statistics.
Is GW true? I don't know. If it is true, why are the claims made using
methods unacceptable to any field of science?
Mike D.
Sam Wormley
Your best answers will come from you digging into the data sources and
methodology.
tunderbar
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > Hackers have gotten into the (so called) University of East Anglia and
> > gotten into their so called Climate "Research" Unit's servers and
> > downloaded e-mails and documents that PROVE that they are liars and
> > frauds that distort the data to fit their man made global warming lies.
>
> > Jones himself admits that the documents that were downloaded were his!
> > Even as one of his e-mails he describes a "trick" he is using to change
> > the data to support the Anthropogenic global warming lies. Jones boldly
> > excuses this damning evidence by saying that lay people aren't able to
> > understand what he said.
>
> > This utterly disgraced "university" scrambles to call the hack a
> > "criminal act", but ignore their own FRAUD against humanity. They have NO
> > SHAME.
>
> > Meanwhile, other conspirators in this global FRAUD are meeting in
> > Copenhagen. Hopefully, the world court will capture them and put them on
> > trial for crimes against humanity and trillion dollar fraud.
>
> >http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-
> > how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/
>
> >http://www.itproportal.com/security/news/article/2009/11/21/hackers-
> > target-east-anglia-university-debunk-global-warming/
>
idiot
Marvin the Martian
> On Nov 28, 9:22 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> idiot
True enough. Mr. Wormley has some logical impairment.
The subject is how Hackers found smoking gun evidence that the AGW
climate researchers doctored the data to show warming when there was
cooling. P.D. Jones himself says in an e-mail that the raw data shows
cooling and he used a "trick" to make it show warming.
Wormley keeps repeating their now discredited data as some sort of excuse
for doctoring that very same data. It would be a funny mistake if it
happened once, but it has happened several times now.
Nor has Wormley said that doctoring data, boycotting journals to get them
to publish only ONE view, doing biased peer review, slandering and
defaming anyone who disagrees with them, and threatening physical
violence to those who disagrees is in any way counter to the scientific
method and the spirit of true and honest scientific inquiry.
Marvin the Martian
You're not grasping the concept.
The e-mails show that the data's been doctored to show warming where
there is cooling.
Quoting the discredited data is not only off subject, but pretty damned
stupid.
Marvin the Martian
> Hey Marvin--You need to start taking global climate change seriously.
I do. I want to see criminal penalties for the frauds lied and said that
it was warming when the earth was cooling. This is a trillion dollar
scam. Perhaps put them on trial for high treason.
You don't give a rip about scientific integrity nor about your country.
Sam Wormley
For some reason, you seem to believe that all climate data has
been doctored. In reality very little, if any has been "doctored".
You have yet to show a before and after "doctored" data set.
The global data CLEARLY shows:
Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
And accompanying Sea Level Rise
http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png
There are many sources of good data, Marvin
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
Marvin, you REALLY need to start taking this global climate
change seriously. Seriously!
Sam Wormley
For some reason, you seem to believe that all climate data has
Sam Wormley
TUKA
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:27:25 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Climate Data
>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
>>
>> You're not grasping the concept.
>>
>> The e-mails show that the data's been doctored to show warming where
>> there is cooling.
>
> For some reason, you seem to believe that all climate data has
> been doctored. In reality very little, if any has been "doctored".
> You have yet to show a before and after "doctored" data set.
You can't -- they destroyed the raw data.
>
> The global data CLEARLY shows:
>
> Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
>
> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
> http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
Nope. Data destroyed.
>
> And accompanying Sea Level Rise
> http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png
>
> There are many sources of good data, Marvin
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
> http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
Real Climate? Dominated by East Anglioids? And NOAA?
*Neither of them will show the raw data*. And now East Anglia says the raw data
was destroyed.
> Marvin, you REALLY need to start taking this global climate
> change seriously. Seriously!
We do -- the cooking of the books is a serious crime. The perpetrators
should be tried. Seriously.
--
{((>:o}~ <<<<Oh look!!! An idolatrous image of the prophet!!! Surely
we must now avenge this blasphemy by burning down the world!!!
TUKA
Lies. They won't show the raw data.
--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
Sam Wormley
<laughing>
Sam Wormley
As any fool can see, you are wrong.
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:30:36 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hey Marvin--You need to start taking global climate change seriously.
>>
>> I do. I want to see criminal penalties for the frauds lied and said
>> that it was warming when the earth was cooling. This is a trillion
>> dollar scam. Perhaps put them on trial for high treason.
>>
>> You don't give a rip about scientific integrity nor about your country.
>
> For some reason, you seem to believe that all climate data has been
> doctored. In reality very little, if any has been "doctored". You
> have yet to show a before and after "doctored" data set.
You got a case of stupids that can't be cured.
What part of "Jones' was telling the other frauds how to doctor their
data" did you NOT understand?
Begin Quote
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding
in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981
onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
End Quote
What part of "hide the decline" are you UNABLE to grasp? That means that
the raw data shows a COOLING PLANET. So all your warming stuff is utter
crap and fabrications.
What part of "WE can't account for the lack of warming at the moment" do
you NOT understand?
Begin Quote
From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To:
Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"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... Our observing system is inadequate"
End Quote
Stop being a troll, Wormley. All the big AGW frauds candidly admit to
each other that THERE IS NO WARMING. You keep posting stuff that THEY
know is bullshit, lies intended for the stooges to be scammed, and you
think that even after we KNOW they doctored the data, that we're STILL
going to fall for their B.S.
Get real. Time for you to either shut up or take science seriously.
Now stop posting bullshit warming data that is fraudulent. Even Jones
knows there is really cooling.
TUKA
Any laughing going on is at you. You re claiming "the global data shows", and
there is none.
--
An alien from Mars would almost instantly diagnose the problem of the
Palestinians from simply listening to their inane apologists: The
problem is not the acquisition of the final seven percent of the West
Bank denied in the offer to them at Camp David, but the pathology of a
victim culture, one that has learned, through playing the card of
terror with simultaneous appeals to multicultural guilt, how to shake
down Westerners for their money, attention, and pity.
-Victor Davis Hanson
TUKA
Oh yeah? Just give the URL where it can be found.
No, cooked data from NOAA doesn't count. Raw data only. All of it.
Including the station listings that supposedly provide the final data.
They won't provide it, and are being sued for it.
And HADCRU? Oh yeah, they just in the past few hours admitted they
destroyed it all. All raw data from 1988 and before, gone.
Sam Wormley
We differ.
Sam Wormley
Cite evidence.
Sam Wormley
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:10:24 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:30:36 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hey Marvin--You need to start taking global climate change seriously.
>>> I do. I want to see criminal penalties for the frauds lied and said
>>> that it was warming when the earth was cooling. This is a trillion
>>> dollar scam. Perhaps put them on trial for high treason.
>>>
>>> You don't give a rip about scientific integrity nor about your country.
>> For some reason, you seem to believe that all climate data has been
>> doctored. In reality very little, if any has been "doctored". You
>> have yet to show a before and after "doctored" data set.
>
> You got a case of stupids that can't be cured.
>
> What part of "Jones' was telling the other frauds how to doctor their
> data" did you NOT understand?
Cite your documentation.
>
> Begin Quote
> From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
> "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding
> in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981
> onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
> End Quote
Does NOT jibe with sea level increases and data not relate to Jones,
nor CO2 concentrations.
Look at the whole picture including Iowa data, Marvin.
>
> What part of "hide the decline" are you UNABLE to grasp? That means that
> the raw data shows a COOLING PLANET. So all your warming stuff is utter
> crap and fabrications.
>
> What part of "WE can't account for the lack of warming at the moment" do
> you NOT understand?
>
> Begin Quote
> From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To:
> Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
> "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... Our observing system is inadequate"
> End Quote
>
> Stop being a troll, Wormley. All the big AGW frauds candidly admit to
> each other that THERE IS NO WARMING. You keep posting stuff that THEY
> know is bullshit, lies intended for the stooges to be scammed, and you
> think that even after we KNOW they doctored the data, that we're STILL
> going to fall for their B.S.
Beg to differ. Lot's of evidence for warming.
>
> Get real. Time for you to either shut up or take science seriously.
The global data CLEARLY shows:
Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
And accompanying Sea Level Rise
http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png
There are many sources of good data, Marvin
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
Marvin, you REALLY need to start taking this global climate
change seriously. Seriously!
>
TUKA
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
and
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/climate-gate-development-cei-f
--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
TUKA
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:10:24 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:30:36 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hey Marvin--You need to start taking global climate change seriously.
>>>> I do. I want to see criminal penalties for the frauds lied and said
>>>> that it was warming when the earth was cooling. This is a trillion
>>>> dollar scam. Perhaps put them on trial for high treason.
>>>>
>>>> You don't give a rip about scientific integrity nor about your country.
>>> For some reason, you seem to believe that all climate data has been
>>> doctored. In reality very little, if any has been "doctored". You
>>> have yet to show a before and after "doctored" data set.
>>
>> You got a case of stupids that can't be cured.
>>
>> What part of "Jones' was telling the other frauds how to doctor their
>> data" did you NOT understand?
>
> Cite your documentation.
Sorry, bud. It's all over the news. Can't help if you don't read it.
Your heroes are lying scumbags. Now *you* are the denier -- get it?
--
Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer
Sam Wormley
What the science says: CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase,
Sea Level increase are all consistent with each other.
The global data (a lot more than you claim doctored) CLEARLY shows:
Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
And accompanying Sea Level Rise
http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png
There are many sources of good data
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
Sam Wormley
Not my heros, but, CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase,
Sea Level increase are all consistent with each other.
You'll enjoy this TUKA:
http://hfranzen.org/
http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
TUKA
Correlation is not causation, or haven't you heard? Oh that's right,
you think consensus is science. Silly me, I thought you had heard
of the scientific method.
>
>
> The global data (a lot more than you claim doctored) CLEARLY shows:
No. Now YOU have to show the data. The data you are citing traces
its roots to that which has been cooked.
--
There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time.
-- Barney
TUKA
You simply don't understand, do you.
1) There is plenty of evidence that global warming has been occurring recently.
2) There is ample evidence that carbon emissions causes warming and that the
level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing.
3) But there is *no* evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are the *main* cause
of the recent global warming.
And now there isn't even evidence of how much warming there really is.
Sam Wormley
>
> Sorry, bud. It's all over the news. Can't help if you don't read it.
>
> Your heroes are lying scumbags. Now *you* are the denier -- get it?
>
Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign"
http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5AO4TW20091125
Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:54pm EST Email | Print | Share | Reprints | Single Page [-] Text [+]
Featured Broker sponsored link
by Stacy Feldman, SolveClimate solveclimate.com/
(SolveClimate) Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the
accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked
emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging
December climate talks in Copenhagen.
"We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public," said
Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of
Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Dissenters see action to slow global warming as "a threat," he said.
The comments were made in a conference call for reporters.
The scientists—Somerville, Michael Mann of Penn State and Eric Steig of University of
Washington—were supposed to be discussing their new report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a
dismal update of the UN IPCC's 2007 climate data by 26 scientists from eight nations.
Instead they spent much of the time diffusing the hacker controversy, known in the media
as "Climate Gate."
The scandal began on November 20, when an unknown hacker stole at least 169 megabytes of
emails from computers at the prominent Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of
East Anglia and put them online for the world to see.
CRU is considered one of the world's leading institutions concerned with human-caused
global warming. The leaked emails contain private correspondence on climate science dating
back to 1996.
Skeptics of global warming say these messages are filled with evidence of manipulated data
from lead authors of the UN's highly influential IPCC reports.
more:
http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5AO4TW20091125
Sam Wormley
TUKA
>
>>
>> Sorry, bud. It's all over the news. Can't help if you don't read it.
>>
>> Your heroes are lying scumbags. Now *you* are the denier -- get it?
>>
>
>
> Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign"
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5AO4TW20091125
>
> Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:54pm EST Email | Print | Share | Reprints | Single Page [-] Text [+]
> Featured Broker sponsored link
>
> by Stacy Feldman, SolveClimate solveclimate.com/
>
> (SolveClimate) Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the
> accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked
> emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging
> December climate talks in Copenhagen.
>
> "We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public," said
> Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of
> Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
>
> Dissenters see action to slow global warming as "a threat," he said.
>
> The comments were made in a conference call for reporters.
>
> Washington?were supposed to be discussing their new report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a
>
> Instead they spent much of the time diffusing the hacker controversy, known in the media
> as "Climate Gate."
>
> The scandal began on November 20, when an unknown hacker stole at least 169 megabytes of
> emails from computers at the prominent Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of
> East Anglia and put them online for the world to see.
>
> CRU is considered one of the world's leading institutions concerned with human-caused
> global warming. The leaked emails contain private correspondence on climate science dating
> back to 1996.
>
> Skeptics of global warming say these messages are filled with evidence of manipulated data
> from lead authors of the UN's highly influential IPCC reports.
>
> more:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5AO4TW20091125
That article is days old, dufus.
THEY DESTROYED THE DATA. Don't you get it? The jig is up!
A smart person would be silent for a while. But you keep on digging yourself
deeper.
The CRU folks will be resigning soon. Jones, Mann, Wigley, Trenbarth,
all disgraced. Hansen will have to step smartly to avoid it, but he was on
his way out anyway.
The global warming zealots are on the run, thank goodness.
--
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon
TUKA
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:30:36 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hey Marvin--You need to start taking global climate change seriously.
>>
>> I do. I want to see criminal penalties for the frauds lied and said that
>> it was warming when the earth was cooling. This is a trillion dollar
>> scam. Perhaps put them on trial for high treason.
>>
>> You don't give a rip about scientific integrity nor about your country.
>
>
> Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign"
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5AO4TW20091125
>
> Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:54pm EST Email | Print | Share | Reprints | Single Page [-] Text [+]
> Featured Broker sponsored link
>
Four days old? In a story developing this fast? Are you mentally defective?
--
Life may not be quite the party we hoped for, but while we
are here we might as well dance. -- Anonymous
Sam Wormley
> Hackers have gotten into the (so called) University of East Anglia and
> gotten into their so called Climate "Research" Unit's servers and
> downloaded e-mails and documents that PROVE that they are liars and
> frauds that distort the data to fit their man made global warming lies.
>
NOT SO FAST THERE MARVIN!
Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign"
http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5AO4TW20091125
Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:54pm EST Email | Print | Share | Reprints | Single Page [-] Text [+]
Featured Broker sponsored link
by Stacy Feldman, SolveClimate solveclimate.com/
(SolveClimate) Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the
accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked
emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging
December climate talks in Copenhagen.
"We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public," said
Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of
Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Dissenters see action to slow global warming as "a threat," he said.
The comments were made in a conference call for reporters.
The scientists—Somerville, Michael Mann of Penn State and Eric Steig of University of
Washington—were supposed to be discussing their new report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a
Sam Wormley
> Hackers have gotten into the (so called) University of East Anglia and
> gotten into their so called Climate "Research" Unit's servers and
> downloaded e-mails and documents that PROVE that they are liars and
> frauds that distort the data to fit their man made global warming lies.
>
> Even as one of his e-mails he describes a "trick" he is using to change
> the data to support the Anthropogenic global warming lies. Jones boldly
> excuses this damning evidence by saying that lay people aren't able to
> understand what he said.
>
> This utterly disgraced "university" scrambles to call the hack a
> "criminal act", but ignore their own FRAUD against humanity. They have NO
> SHAME.
>
> Meanwhile, other conspirators in this global FRAUD are meeting in
> Copenhagen. Hopefully, the world court will capture them and put them on
> trial for crimes against humanity and trillion dollar fraud.
>
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-
> how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/
>
> http://www.itproportal.com/security/news/article/2009/11/21/hackers-
> target-east-anglia-university-debunk-global-warming/
>
> http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRU-update
Too Late -- Climate change: How global warming is having an impact
http://www.spacedaily.com/2006/091129012207.wdrqeoz7.html
PARIS, Nov 29 (AFP) Nov 29, 2009
From cautiously advising that man-made, heat-trapping carbon gases would disrupt Earth's
climate system, mainstream scientists are increasingly convinced that the first signs of
change are already here.
Following are the main indicators, reported in the scientific press over past three years:
RISING SEAS: Sea levels have risen in tandem with global warming, according to the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The global average sea level has risen
since 1961 at an average rate of 1.8mm (0.07 inches) per year, but accelerated from 1991
to 3.1mm (0.12 inches) per year. The IPCC estimated sea levels would rise 18-59
centimetres (7.2-23.2 inches) by 2100. But added runoff from melting land ice is
accelerating. According to Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK),
the global sea level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected. If emissions
are not curbed, "it may well exceed one metre (3.25 feet)."
SHRINKING GLACIERS: Mountain glaciers and snow cover in both hemispheres have widely
retreated in the past few decades. One of the most closely-observed sites, the Cook
glacier on the southern Indian Ocean island of Kerguelen, has shrunk by a fifth in 40
years. Around 1.3 billion people depend on the water that flows down from Himalayan
glaciers, which in some places are falling back at up to 70 metres (230 feet) per year.
The snows capping Mount Kilimanjaro, Africa's tallest peak, could vanish entirely in 20
years, US experts reported this month.
SHIFTING SEASONS: Some species of birds and fish are shifting habitat in response to
warmer temperatures. The range of 105 bird species in France moved north, on average, 91
kilometres (56.5 miles) from 1989 to 2006. Average temperatures, however, shifted
northward 273 kilometres (170 miles) over the same period, nearly three times farther.
Twenty-one out of 36 species of fish in the North Sea migrated northwards between 1962 and
2001 in search of cooler waters. Anecdotal evidence from commercial fishermen says
once-exotic species of fish from warmer latitudes now inhabit southern British waters.
OCEAN ACIDIFICATION: The acidity of the seas is rising as oceans absorb more carbon
dioxide (CO2), with an impact on coral and micro-organisms, marine biologists say. Since
the start of the Industrial Revolution, the protective calcium shell of amoeba-like
organisms living in the Southern Ocean called foraminifera, a vital link in the food
chain, has fallen in weight by a third. "Within decades," acidification could severely
affect biodiversity and fisheries, 150 marine scientists jointly warned last January.
ARCTIC ICE: The Greenland ice sheet has lost 1,500 billion tonnes of ice since 2000,
contributing 0.75 mm (0.03 inch) annually to sea levels, according to a study published
this month. In 2009, the Arctic summer sea ice pack thawed to its third smallest size on
record, confirming a shrinkage trend seen over the past 30 years. Some experts believe the
Arctic ice cap will disappear completely in summer months within 20 to 30 years.
ANTARCTIC WARMING: The Antarctic peninsula has warmed by 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees
Fahrenheit) in the last 50 years, around six times the global average. In the past 20
years, Antarctica has lost seven ice shelves -- huge floating ledges of ice, attached to
the shore, that are fed by glaciers.
PERMAFROST RETREAT: Emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane were found to be
soaring at sites investigated in 2006 by University of Alaska scientists at lakes in
northern Siberia. The reason is thawing of the permafrost, causing the warmed soil to
release gas that had been stored for thousands of years. Billions of tonnes of methane,
which comes from natural sources such as decomposing vegetation and marshland, are stored
in the frozen lands of Siberia, Canada and Alaska.
CHANGED PRECIPITATION: Patterns of rainfall or snowfall increased "significantly" from
1900-2005 in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe and northern and
central Asia but declined in the Sahel, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia, says
the IPCC. "Globally, the area affected by drought has likely increased since the 1970s,"
it adds.
STORMS: A mooted link between climate change and extreme events has little scientific
consensus. A 2008 study by the Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre at University College
London found that warmer seas accounted for 40 percent of a large increase (from six a
year to eight a year) in the number of Atlantic hurricanes from 1996-2005. Other
scientists say it is hard to say whether a drought, flood or cyclone is part of the longer
trend which is climate change or simply just a one-off event, or series of them.
SOURCES: IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007); Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative
Research Center (Australia); Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK); Nature;
Science; Nature Geoscience; Laboratory for Studying Geophysics and Space Oceanography
(France); French National Museum of Natural History; Pen Hadow Arctic expedition; US
National Snow and Ice Data Center; British Antarctic Survey (BAS); University of Alaska at
Fairbanks.
Sam Wormley
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:19:28 -0800, tunderbar wrote:
>
>> On Nov 28, 9:22 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> idiot
>
> True enough. Mr. Wormley has some logical impairment.
>
> The subject is how Hackers found smoking gun evidence that the AGW
> climate researchers doctored the data to show warming when there was
> cooling. P.D. Jones himself says in an e-mail that the raw data shows
> cooling and he used a "trick" to make it show warming.
>
> Wormley keeps repeating their now discredited data as some sort of excuse
> for doctoring that very same data. It would be a funny mistake if it
> happened once, but it has happened several times now.
>
> Nor has Wormley said that doctoring data, boycotting journals to get them
> to publish only ONE view, doing biased peer review, slandering and
> defaming anyone who disagrees with them, and threatening physical
> violence to those who disagrees is in any way counter to the scientific
> method and the spirit of true and honest scientific inquiry.
Last Post
> >> Marvin the Martian wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:27:25 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>> Climate Data
> >>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
> >>> You're not grasping the concept.
>
> >>> The e-mails show that the data's been doctored to show warming where
> >>> there is cooling.
> >> For some reason, you seem to believe that all climate data has
> >> been doctored. In reality very little, if any has been "doctored".
> >> You have yet to show a before and after "doctored" data set.
>
> > You can't -- they destroyed the raw data.
>
> >> The global data CLEARLY shows:
>
> >> Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
> >> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png
> >> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
> >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
>
> >> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
>
> > Nope. Data destroyed.
>
> >> And accompanying Sea Level Rise
>
> >> There are many sources of good data, Marvin
> >> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
> >> http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
>
> > Real Climate? Dominated by East Anglioids? And NOAA?
>
> > *Neither of them will show the raw data*. And now East Anglia says the raw data
> > was destroyed.
>
> >> Marvin, you REALLY need to start taking this global climate
> >> change seriously. Seriously!
>
> > We do -- the cooking of the books is a serious crime. The perpetrators
> > should be tried. Seriously.
>
> <laughing>
•• Indeed Worms, Marvin is right and you and
your data mavens belong in the shitter!
Remember - He who laughs last laughs best.
— —
| 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
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:27:25 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>
>>> Climate Data
>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
>>
>> You're not grasping the concept.
>>
>> The e-mails show that the data's been doctored to show warming where
>> there is cooling.
>
> For some reason, you seem to believe that all climate data has been
> doctored. In reality very little, if any has been "doctored". You
> have yet to show a before and after "doctored" data set.
The reason is that even Jones, Mann and all the rest of them KNOW that
there is cooling. THAT'S why they have DOCTORED THE DATA TO HIDE THE
COOLING! ANY data that shows recent warming is thus DOCTORED DATA. Jones
was TELLING other "researchers" how to doctor the data.
There is ONE physical reality, Wormley. (Okay, two. Yours, and the one
the rest of us live in). The data shows COOLING. So any data showing
WARMING is bullshit doctored data.
You keep dragging out more bullshit data, and claiming it proves that
there's warming. No. It proves that there are lots of liars out there
making the argument for AGW.
And once again you stupidly IGNORE the subject line that this is thread
is about SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. You keep posting the fraud itself as a way to
excuse the fraud. What's with you? I you're brain damaged.
< snip lies and crap >
Marvin the Martian
> TUKA wrote:
>> On 2009-11-29, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> TUKA wrote:
>>>> We do -- the cooking of the books is a serious crime. The
>>>> perpetrators should be tried. Seriously.
>>>>
>>> <laughing>
>>
>> Any laughing going on is at you. You re claiming "the global data
>> shows", and there is none.
>>
>>
> We differ.
Damned right. TUKA is sane and outraged at scientific fraud to scam the
world. You're not sane and you support the fraud.
TUKA
>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:19:28 -0800, tunderbar wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 28, 9:22 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> idiot
>>
>> True enough. Mr. Wormley has some logical impairment.
>>
>> The subject is how Hackers found smoking gun evidence that the AGW
>> climate researchers doctored the data to show warming when there was
>> cooling. P.D. Jones himself says in an e-mail that the raw data shows
>> cooling and he used a "trick" to make it show warming.
>>
>> Wormley keeps repeating their now discredited data as some sort of excuse
>> for doctoring that very same data. It would be a funny mistake if it
>> happened once, but it has happened several times now.
>>
>> Nor has Wormley said that doctoring data, boycotting journals to get them
>> to publish only ONE view, doing biased peer review, slandering and
>> defaming anyone who disagrees with them, and threatening physical
>> violence to those who disagrees is in any way counter to the scientific
>> method and the spirit of true and honest scientific inquiry.
>
>
> Too Late -- Climate change: How global warming is having an impact
> http://www.spacedaily.com/2006/091129012207.wdrqeoz7.html
>
Utter BS., and four year old BS at that.
>
> SOURCES: IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007);
Don't you understand? Anything with that as a source is dead, dead, dead.
> Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative
> Research Center (Australia); Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK); Nature;
> Science; Nature Geoscience; Laboratory for Studying Geophysics and Space Oceanography
> (France); French National Museum of Natural History; Pen Hadow Arctic expedition;
Pen Hadow? Splorff!
--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
-- Mark Twain
Robert Higgins
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:19:28 -0800, tunderbar wrote:
>
> >> On Nov 28, 9:22 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >> idiot
>
> > True enough. Mr. Wormley has some logical impairment.
>
> > The subject is how Hackers found smoking gun evidence that the AGW
> > climate researchers doctored the data to show warming when there was
> > cooling. P.D. Jones himself says in an e-mail that the raw data shows
> > cooling and he used a "trick" to make it show warming.
>
> > Wormley keeps repeating their now discredited data as some sort of excuse
> > for doctoring that very same data. It would be a funny mistake if it
> > happened once, but it has happened several times now.
>
> > Nor has Wormley said that doctoring data, boycotting journals to get them
> > to publish only ONE view, doing biased peer review, slandering and
> > defaming anyone who disagrees with them, and threatening physical
> > violence to those who disagrees is in any way counter to the scientific
> > method and the spirit of true and honest scientific inquiry.
>
> Too Late -- Climate change: How global warming is having an impact
> http://www.spacedaily.com/2006/091129012207.wdrqeoz7.html
>
> PARIS, Nov 29 (AFP) Nov 29, 2009
> From cautiously advising that man-made, heat-trapping carbon gases would disrupt Earth's
"cautiously advising"? Are you kidding? How about hysterical
predictions of 12 FOOT sea level rise!
> climate system, mainstream scientists are increasingly convinced that the first signs of
> change are already here.
They are so "convinced" that they scheme on how to withhold release of
the raw data and models on which they base all their estimates. They
also hysterically oppose nuclear power - the only power source with a
reasonable chance of averting this "catastrophe" without iposing a
grater economic catastrophe.
> Following are the main indicators, reported in the scientific press over past three years:
>
> RISING SEAS: Sea levels have risen in tandem with global warming, according to the UN's
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The global average sea level has risen
> since 1961 at an average rate of 1.8mm (0.07 inches) per year, but accelerated from 1991
> to 3.1mm (0.12 inches) per year. The IPCC estimated sea levels would rise 18-59
> centimetres (7.2-23.2 inches) by 2100. But added runoff from melting land ice is
> accelerating. According to Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK),
> the global sea level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected. If emissions
> are not curbed, "it may well exceed one metre (3.25 feet)."
The IPCC is the same organization that was prediction a TWELVE FOT sea
level rise... then it was "Oops", we meant twelve INCHES". FOr a
prediction that is such "settled science" to be off by an order of
magnitude does not inspire confidence.
>
> SHRINKING GLACIERS: Mountain glaciers and snow cover in both hemispheres have widely
> retreated in the past few decades. One of the most closely-observed sites, the Cook
> glacier on the southern Indian Ocean island of Kerguelen, has shrunk by a fifth in 40
> years. Around 1.3 billion people depend on the water that flows down from Himalayan
> glaciers, which in some places are falling back at up to 70 metres (230 feet) per year.
> The snows capping Mount Kilimanjaro, Africa's tallest peak, could vanish entirely in 20
> years, US experts reported this month.
Big deal - glaciers have been retreating since the last ice age.
>
> SHIFTING SEASONS: Some species of birds and fish are shifting habitat in response to
> warmer temperatures. The range of 105 bird species in France moved north, on average, 91
> kilometres (56.5 miles) from 1989 to 2006. Average temperatures, however, shifted
> northward 273 kilometres (170 miles) over the same period, nearly three times farther.
> Twenty-one out of 36 species of fish in the North Sea migrated northwards between 1962 and
> 2001 in search of cooler waters. Anecdotal evidence from commercial fishermen says
> once-exotic species of fish from warmer latitudes now inhabit southern British waters.
So, all the species are shifting their habits in response to the
warming that HASN'T OCCURED in the last decade. Since global temps
have not increased in a decade, why are all the birds changing their
habits? Do they subscribe to the New York Times and the Washington
Post?
>
> OCEAN ACIDIFICATION: The acidity of the seas is rising as oceans absorb more carbon
> dioxide (CO2), with an impact on coral and micro-organisms, marine biologists say. Since
> the start of the Industrial Revolution, the protective calcium shell of amoeba-like
> organisms living in the Southern Ocean called foraminifera, a vital link in the food
> chain, has fallen in weight by a third. "Within decades," acidification could severely
> affect biodiversity and fisheries, 150 marine scientists jointly warned last January.
This badly undercuts your argument. Supposedly, the pH is dropping
because of increased absorption of CO2. That is possible when the
partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases (Henry's Law). But
temperature increase in the water should DECREASE the solubility of
CO2 (Hadley's Law). The fact the oceans are acting as such an effect
CO2 sink is encouraging, not discouraging. The scientists also don;t
bother to point out what the actual pH of the oceans is, how quickly
it is changing, the confidence intervals for any poarticualr
measurement, and its buffering capacity.
>
> ARCTIC ICE: The Greenland ice sheet has lost 1,500 billion tonnes of ice since 2000,
> contributing 0.75 mm (0.03 inch) annually to sea levels, according to a study published
> this month. In 2009, the Arctic summer sea ice pack thawed to its third smallest size on
> record, confirming a shrinkage trend seen over the past 30 years. Some experts believe the
> Arctic ice cap will disappear completely in summer months within 20 to 30 years.
That is probably why environmentalists visiting the Artic got STUCK in
unexpected ice. The same has happened in the Antarctic to a Russian
cruise ship.
>
> ANTARCTIC WARMING: The Antarctic peninsula has warmed by 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees
> Fahrenheit) in the last 50 years, around six times the global average. In the past 20
> years, Antarctica has lost seven ice shelves -- huge floating ledges of ice, attached to
> the shore, that are fed by glaciers.
Do the IPCC models explain WHY Antarctica is warming 6x FASTER than
the global average?
>
> PERMAFROST RETREAT: Emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane were found to be
> soaring at sites investigated in 2006 by University of Alaska scientists at lakes in
> northern Siberia. The reason is thawing of the permafrost, causing the warmed soil to
> release gas that had been stored for thousands of years. Billions of tonnes of methane,
> which comes from natural sources such as decomposing vegetation and marshland, are stored
> in the frozen lands of Siberia, Canada and Alaska.
>
> CHANGED PRECIPITATION: Patterns of rainfall or snowfall increased "significantly" from
> 1900-2005 in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe and northern and
> central Asia but declined in the Sahel, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia, says
> the IPCC. "Globally, the area affected by drought has likely increased since the 1970s,"
> it adds.
More bs predictions of hurricanes, when hurricanes have been known
for a very long time to follow cyclic patterns.
>
> STORMS: A mooted link between climate change and extreme events has little scientific
> consensus. A 2008 study by the Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre at University College
> London found that warmer seas accounted for 40 percent of a large increase (from six a
> year to eight a year) in the number of Atlantic hurricanes from 1996-2005. Other
> scientists say it is hard to say whether a drought, flood or cyclone is part of the longer
> trend which is climate change or simply just a one-off event, or series of them.
The "other scientists" are correct. What happened to all the nasty
hurricanes that were predicted for this year? OOPS!
>
> SOURCES: IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007); Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative
> Research Center (Australia); Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK); Nature;
> Science; Nature Geoscience; Laboratory for Studying Geophysics and Space Oceanography
> (France); French National Museum of Natural History; Pen Hadow Arctic expedition; US
> National Snow and Ice Data Center; British Antarctic Survey (BAS); University of Alaska at
> Fairbanks.
It isn't so much the hacked emails that are important - some of the
modelling code was posted. Computer Programmers report that the code
is poorly documented and filled with "Fudge factors" that aren't
explained.
I got to see a presentation of the development of a computer model to
explain ice cores from Antarctica. It was filled with so many
(untenable) assumptions as to be completely meaningless. Yet the Left
wants to destroy the world economy to "Save" the world from "Climate
change" based on this drivel.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:30:36 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Hey Marvin--You need to start taking global climate change seriously.
>
> I do. I want to see criminal penalties for the frauds lied and said that
> it was warming when the earth was cooling. This is a trillion dollar
> scam. Perhaps put them on trial for high treason.
>
> You don't give a rip about scientific integrity nor about your country.
and what about cyber crime?
Robert Higgins
What about it? Do you support the vigorous prosecution of every
newspaper reporter that "finds" classified or private documents? Or
only those whose political views disagree with your own?
Sam Wormley
Climatological cooling over a 30 year period (30 years is the norm
in climatology) does no show up in the data.
CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level
increase, are all consistent with each other. Real
impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather
patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting.
The global data CLEARLY shows:
Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
And accompanying Sea Level Rise
There are many sources of good data
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
Here's some data from Iowa State University
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html
More from University of Iowa
http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/faculty-staff/profile-directory/cee/schnoor_j.php
Franzen - The Chemistry and Physics of Global Climate Change
http://hfranzen.org/
http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:30:36 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hey Marvin--You need to start taking global climate change seriously.
>>
>> I do. I want to see criminal penalties for the frauds lied and said
>> that it was warming when the earth was cooling. This is a trillion
>> dollar scam. Perhaps put them on trial for high treason.
>>
>> You don't give a rip about scientific integrity nor about your country.
>
>
> Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign"
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/
internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5AO4TW20091125
>
> Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:54pm EST Email | Print | Share | Reprints | Single
> Page [-] Text [+] Featured Broker sponsored link
>
> by Stacy Feldman, SolveClimate solveclimate.com/
>
> (SolveClimate) Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report
> documenting the accelerating pace of climate change
Too bad for the frauds that "the accelerating pace of climate change"
only appears in the intentional lies they published. Between themselves,
they admit that the trend has REVERSED, and there is cooling. You're an
idiot to not see that, Wormley. Or a liar. Whichever, it doesn't matter.
> said the scandal
> that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is
> nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December
> climate talks in Copenhagen.
>
> "We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse
> the public," said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus
> at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC
> Fourth Assessment Report.
It wasn't Exxon that wrote those e-mails that showed that the AGW
advocates were cooking the data, slandering people (which is what this
idiot Somerville is doing), using fraudulent "peer review" keep papers
that exposed their falsehoods from being published, and even trying to
shut down journals that tried to publish objectively.
That was all done by the AGW frauds. Somerville, therefore, is a damned
liar. Like you, he accepts scientific fraud as acceptable, showing he's
simply not able to act as a real scientist.
> Dissenters see action to slow global warming as "a threat," he said.
1) Since they are lying about what caused climate change, they can't
propose a solution.
2) Their solution doesn't lower CO2 by one damned molecule. They propose
that moving trillions of dollars out of the United States and into commie
china and to 3rd world dictatorships is some sort of solution. They see a
world dictatorship as a "solution".
You betcha any freedom loving American sees their "solution" as a threat.
A threat to our freedom and our prosperity, and for what? A big damed lie
from the American hating left wing loonies.
TUKA
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:10:57 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:30:36 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hey Marvin--You need to start taking global climate change seriously.
>>>
>>> I do. I want to see criminal penalties for the frauds lied and said
>>> that it was warming when the earth was cooling. This is a trillion
>>> dollar scam. Perhaps put them on trial for high treason.
>>>
>>> You don't give a rip about scientific integrity nor about your country.
>>
>>
>> Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign"
>>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/
> internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5AO4TW20091125
>>
>> Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:54pm EST Email | Print | Share | Reprints | Single
>> Page [-] Text [+] Featured Broker sponsored link
>>
>> by Stacy Feldman, SolveClimate solveclimate.com/
>>
>> (SolveClimate) Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report
>> documenting the accelerating pace of climate change
>
> Too bad for the frauds that "the accelerating pace of climate change"
> only appears in the intentional lies they published. Between themselves,
> they admit that the trend has REVERSED, and there is cooling. You're an
> idiot to not see that, Wormley. Or a liar. Whichever, it doesn't matter.
And now that they have admitted the raw data that supposedly supported
their claims, all research citing IPCC reports as a major portion of provenence
must be revisited.
There is now no evidence of global warming. No such evidence exists.
The AGW folks are now reduced to "trust us, it's happening".
--
Life isn't fair, but it's good. -- Regina Brett
Marvin the Martian
< spam posted over a dozen times before snipped >
That's all you got? Mindless cut and pastes of stuff that I've already
debunked?
You're not embarrassed by that at all, are you?
Can you even admit that the hacked e-mails show fraud? Try it. Stick to
the damned subject.
Answer these two questions, without a cut and paste from one of your bot
replies.
Do the East Anglia e-mails show that there is global cooling or not?
Do the East Anglia E-mails show that there is an intentional hiding of
the cooling?
Marvin the Martian
Let's see... A trillion dollar treasonous scam on one side.
Downloading files and putting them on a website to expose that crime on
the other ... when it is known that the criminals intended to (and did)
delete the evidence when faced with a Freedom of Information act order to
hand it over.
These "hackers" (if it wasn't an inside job) just saved the damned world
from you nutjobs. What they did was entirely justified.
Marvin the Martian
LOL!!! Wormley asks for the evidence, and when you gave it to him he cut
and pastes one of his crap standard replies! Sam Wormley IS NO
SCIENTIST!! He doesn't give a crap about the evidence! He doesn't give a
crap about the truth! He's just a "true believer" out to save the world,
and he's a terrible one at that! He bring more discredit to his cause
with his silly, irrational, non responsive posts to his cause and he
isn't even smart enough to know it!
He has YET to admit that the East Anglia e-mails show that Jones and
others KNOW THERE'S COOLING.
He has yet to admit that those e-mails show an abuse of science.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Once again, your rational fails. You present no rule of law, just a
rationalization based on your opinions, where does it stop?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
i have had to abide by the law when conducting my own investigation,
thats what i am basing my argument on. I do not condone cybercrime,
so i would have you expand on the words "finds" in your above
statement, as to how it relates to the work of a hacker.
mrbawana2u
You thought ONLY you were allowed to do that, you delusional
fucktard?
Robert Higgins
You're joking, right? When the New York Times or Washington Post
publishes classified data, how do you think it gets it in the first
place?
Don't you know that leaking classified intel is a crime? Yet how many
people have been prosecuted for leaking? Who was prosecuted for
leaking info on terrorist renditions, or the "black prisons"?
If some sells me a VCR for 10 bucks, saying it "fell off a truck", I
can (and will be) prosecuted for receiving stolen property. If a New
York Times reporter gets the same deal on a stack of documents, every
reporter from here to Kalamazoo will invoke privileges. Almost every
significant investigation involves such practices, without which the
press wold accomplish little. Unless, of course, the story smacks down
the Left, in which case everyone becomes outraged.
Are you seriously suggesting that newspapers don't traffic in hacked
or stolen documents all the time?
Sam Wormley
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:40:03 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> debunked?
>
> You're not embarrassed by that at all, are you?
>
> Can you even admit that the hacked e-mails show fraud? Try it. Stick to
> the damned subject.
>
> Answer these two questions, without a cut and paste from one of your bot
> replies.
>
> Do the East Anglia e-mails show that there is global cooling or not?
Global warming is happening independent of emails. The impact of
increasing temperature is showing up in many way in many parts of
the world. I don't really care much about the East Anglia e-mails.
>
> Do the East Anglia E-mails show that there is an intentional hiding of
> the cooling?
>
There is no cooling to hide, Marvin. You would do well to start
TUKA
How do you know? The data that the IPCC and most every other climate
researcher was basing their stuff on is shown to be compromised. It can't
be relied on until it is fully vetted. They have deleted the raw data.
> The impact of increasing temperature is showing up in many way in
> many parts of the world. I don't really care much about the East
> Anglia e-mails.
You don't care much about science if you don't.
--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
Robert Higgins
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:40:03 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > > Climatological cooling over a 30 year period (30 years is the norm
> >> in climatology) does no show up in the data.
>
> >> CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level
> >> increase, are all consistent with each other. Real
> >> impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather
> >> patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting.
>
> >> The global data CLEARLY shows:
>
> >> Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
> >> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png
> >> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
> >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
>
> >> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
>
> >> And accompanying Sea Level Rise
>
>
> >> There are many sources of good data
> >> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
> >> http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
>
> >> Here's some data from Iowa State University
> >> http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html
>
> >> More from University of Iowa
>
> >> Franzen - The Chemistry and Physics of Global Climate Change
> >> http://hfranzen.org/
> >> http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pd
>
> > That's all you got? Mindless cut and pastes of stuff that I've already
> > debunked?
>
> > You're not embarrassed by that at all, are you?
>
> > Can you even admit that the hacked e-mails show fraud? Try it. Stick to
> > the damned subject.
>
> > Answer these two questions, without a cut and paste from one of your bot
> > replies.
>
> > Do the East Anglia e-mails show that there is global cooling or not?
>
> Global warming is happening independent of emails. The impact of
> increasing temperature is showing up in many way in many parts of
> the world. I don't really care much about the East Anglia e-mails.
>
>
>
> > Do the East Anglia E-mails show that there is an intentional hiding of
> > the cooling?
>
> There is no cooling to hide, Marvin. You would do well to start
> taking global climate change seriously.
Do YOU take the threat seriously enough to support the only action
that could conceivably affect CO2 levels, i.e., nuclear power?
Sam Wormley
>
> Do YOU take the threat seriously enough to support the only action
> that could conceivably affect CO2 levels, i.e., nuclear power?
I want to get the science right. I'm not trying to influence
others' mitigation behaviors.
It's interesting that a science discussion group I belong to
will be looking at nuclear power next week.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
first im suggesting you are skipping over how the information was
aquired, which was a cyber crime. Next ethical use of information
obtained from a source is most certainly in question here, so dont try
to make left vs right, your example is an issue of ethics, mine does
not waiver from left to right, does yours?
tj Frazir
and you love to fuck the planets people up the ass for a buck.
YOUR all fucking stupid.
I hope when the oil bosses starve to death because THIS engine will end
the oil age that you starve to death too.
tj Frazir
run 71 HP at 423 MPG .
Global Cooling can be fixed by not running 175 mpg cars.
They lied about more then the math..on GW they use summer pics and claim
it winter.
tj Frazir
It was bribery then theft.
money well spent too.
IF you hang the man for exposing this hoax then you wont mind picking
up a gun to defend global warming with.
drugwar for profit ..wars for profit ,,global warming for profit ...
Sam is a scumbag
Bret Cahill
video?
Bret Cahill
Robert Higgins
I get it - you are "shocked, shocked!" that someone in the press would
do something unethical/illegal. Shocked!
> Next ethical use of information
> obtained from a source is most certainly in question here, so dont try
> to make left vs right, your example is an issue of ethics, mine does
> not waiver from left to right, does yours?
What is remotely "unethical" here? The Left routinely supports
disclosures of ANY nature, from ANY source, even if it directly
jeopardizes national security. Are you saying, for example, that the
NYT disclosing the "warrantless wiretapping" program didn't damage USA
security? Yet, this is considered an adequate trade-off for freedom of
the press and an informed public. Where is there ANYWHERE near the
same situation here? The worst that happens here is that some pompous
scientists are mildly embarassed. Since they are accepting public
funds, and are holding themselves out as public figures (proselytizing
to the public), they deserve no greater privacy than an MP or
governor.
Robert Higgins
> Robert Higgins wrote:
>
> > Do YOU take the threat seriously enough to support the only action
> > that could conceivably affect CO2 levels, i.e., nuclear power?
>
> I want to get the science right. I'm not trying to influence
> others' mitigation behaviors.
I appreciate that. Unfortunately, many others are interested in
climate science as a politcal dodge.
>
> It's interesting that a science discussion group I belong to
> will be looking at nuclear power next week.
You'll notice that, with a few exceptions, precisely those who are
most "concerned" about climate change are tose who are most
vociferously opposed to nuclear power.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
ok on that same note, you are blind, BLIND to a cyber crime, and your
emotions have outwieghed your rational logical judgments. Once again,
you are skipping over the crime.
Marvin the Martian
Once again, they saved the world. No one is going to convict them.
They're heroes, you're a stooge, so forget it.
Mahipal7638
Good questions.
> If some sells me a VCR for 10 bucks, saying it "fell off a truck", I
> can (and will be) prosecuted for receiving stolen property. If a New
> York Times reporter gets the same deal on a stack of documents, every
> reporter from here to Kalamazoo will invoke privileges. Almost every
> significant investigation involves such practices, without which the
> press wold accomplish little. Unless, of course, the story smacks down
> the Left, in which case everyone becomes outraged.
What's funny is anyone considering paying 10 bucks for a VCR in light
of today's technologies. What year are you time-trapped in?
In principle, stolen property is independent of it being an archaic
VCR or a set of freshly minted digital bits or records from anyone.
Did the Hackers ask for money or otherwise sell the emails that were
clearly ill-protected given today's clouded computers? Doesn't matter.
What matters is the emails exist@all.
> Are you seriously suggesting that newspapers don't traffic in hacked
> or stolen documents all the time?
Set aside the IPCC and its recent findings. The greater IPMM works in
mysterious ways.
Enjo(y)..
--
Mahipal
If you have to ask what IPMM is, you're so search technology
challenged. Asking questions is becoming so outdated -- since it's
already been asked and addressed.
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> Answer these two questions, without a cut and paste from one of your
>> bot replies.
>>
>> Do the East Anglia e-mails show that there is global cooling or not?
>
> Global warming is happening independent of emails. The impact of
> increasing temperature is showing up in many way in many parts of the
> world. I don't really care much about the East Anglia e-mails.
1) You're an idiot. The e-mails show that the top frauds in the AGW scam
KNOW that there is no warming. They were conspiring to HIDE the warming.
Okay, give it up.
2) You're saying that there's warming. Based on the "work" that we now
know as lies. So other words, you're sticking WITH the bald faced lies
even when everyone KNOWS they're lies.
>> Do the East Anglia E-mails show that there is an intentional hiding of
>> the cooling?
>>
>>
> There is no cooling to hide, Marvin. You would do well to start
> taking global climate change seriously.
You're delusional.
Robert Higgins
You're right - the hackers were NAUGHTY, NAUGHTY. How many letters
have your written asking for prosecution of the reporters for the NYT
or Washington Post for crimes?
Has it occured to you that the meails in question suggest a certain
pattern of attempts to circumvent laws like the FOIA? Are you upset
about that, too? Were you the guy in high school who used to check
hall passes?
Sam Wormley
Marvin, it doesn't matter what I am... I'm insignificant. I would
appreciate it if you could be a bit more objective, Martin. Look
at his increase in sea level.
http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png
What does that tell you?
Bill Ward
> TUKA wrote:
>
>
>> Sorry, bud. It's all over the news. Can't help if you don't read it.
>>
>> Your heroes are lying scumbags. Now *you* are the denier -- get it?
>>
>>
>
> Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign"
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/
internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5AO4TW20091125
>
> Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:54pm EST Email | Print | Share | Reprints | Single
> Page [-] Text [+] Featured Broker sponsored link
>
> by Stacy Feldman, SolveClimate solveclimate.com/
>
> (SolveClimate) Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report
> documenting the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal
> that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is
> nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December
> climate talks in Copenhagen.
>
> "We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse
> the public," said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus
> at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC
> Fourth Assessment Report.
>
> Dissenters see action to slow global warming as "a threat," he said.
>
> The comments were made in a conference call for reporters.
>
> The scientists—Somerville, Michael Mann of Penn State and Eric Steig of
> University of Washington—were supposed to be discussing their new
> report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a dismal update of the UN IPCC's 2007
> climate data by 26 scientists from eight nations.
>
> Instead they spent much of the time diffusing the hacker controversy,
> known in the media as "Climate Gate."
>
> The scandal began on November 20, when an unknown hacker stole at least
> 169 megabytes of emails from computers at the prominent Climate Research
> Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and put them online for the
> world to see.
>
> CRU is considered one of the world's leading institutions concerned with
> human-caused global warming. The leaked emails contain private
> correspondence on climate science dating back to 1996.
>
> Skeptics of global warming say these messages are filled with evidence
> of manipulated data from lead authors of the UN's highly influential
> IPCC reports.
>
> more:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/
internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5AO4TW20091125
I believe the technical term for Sam's condition is "unhinged". He's
simply gone round the bend, beyond reach of sanity. Perhaps he's the
first actual casualty of the AGW collapse. He just can't deal with the
fact he's been proven wrong, and mindlessly chants his mantra, hoping it
will protect him from reality.
Oh well, no great loss, on with life...
Marvin the Martian
That glaciers which started retreating with the end of the ice age 25,000
years ago is causing the oceans to very slowly rise. What I've asked you
before and you simply changed the subject is why you believe that the
first 24,900 years since the end of the ice age is natural and the last
100 years is caused by the United States. And why the only solution you
go to this "problem" is to pack up what is left of US industry and send
it to china and to tax Americans into freezing to death.
It also tells me that you don't know what a rational argument is.
Bill Ward
That you're really, really desperate to change the subject.
Sorry, game over.
Sam Wormley
> That you're really, really desperate to change the subject.
>
> Sorry, game over.
>
Yes, Bill, your game is over... we are already starting to see
impacts of global warming showing up in agriculture, ecosystems,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
interesting, you are once again are rationalizing a crime, that is a
fact. You are trying to equate what a reporter or editor should do
with leaked information, to that of posting private emails that were
acquired by a hacker, and how a webmaster could handle things. But
you are missing the point of how the information was aquired.
Attempting to marginalize such a topic with your lame
characterizations, does not make a logical case, it just shows how you
are willing to justify a crime....