"We found them squeaky clean"
Hawke
researchers supposedly guilty of lying about climate change found after
looking into the matter. "Climategate" as it was called has been found
to be no more valid than "whitewater" was. The only thing the scientists
were guilty of was sloppy record keeping but not bad science. So the
allegations against the scientists were bogus, the scientists were
honest, and once again the right wing deniers are shown to be the shills
for energy producing polluters. As usual, the right wing liars and
deniers of reality are shown for what they are, a bunch of crooked con
men. Ho hum, nothing new here.
Hawke
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> That is what the Royal Society panel assigned to look into the climate
> researchers supposedly guilty of lying about climate change found after
> looking into the matter. "Climategate" as it was called has been found
> to be no more valid than "whitewater" was. The only thing the scientists
> were guilty of was sloppy record keeping but not bad science.
Sloppy record keeping IS bad science.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
IRS: We've got what it takes to take what you've got.
Too_Many_Tools
> Hawke wrote:
>
> > That is what the Royal Society panel assigned to look into the climate
> > researchers supposedly guilty of lying about climate change found after
> > looking into the matter. "Climategate" as it was called has been found
> > to be no more valid than "whitewater" was. The only thing the scientists
> > were guilty of was sloppy record keeping but not bad science.
>
> Sloppy record keeping IS bad science.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> IRS: We've got what it takes to take what you've got.
Wrong.
TMT
Larry Jaques
<Pa...@Hovnanian.com> scrawled the following:
>Hawke wrote:
>>
>> That is what the Royal Society panel assigned to look into the climate
>> researchers supposedly guilty of lying about climate change found after
>> looking into the matter. "Climategate" as it was called has been found
>> to be no more valid than "whitewater" was. The only thing the scientists
>> were guilty of was sloppy record keeping but not bad science.
>
>Sloppy record keeping IS bad science.
Have Parakeet tell that to, um...(oh, who's the guy at CRU who stepped
down?) Phil Jones, who admitted to manipulating (falsifying) climate
data. "Lost" is data supporting CRU theories of global warming. Who
could have guessed that might happen? He's no scientist; he's a
freakin' politician who got caught and AFAIK, isn't in prison for it,
either.
---
A book burrows into your life in a very profound way
because the experience of reading is not passive.
--Erica Jong
Buerste
"Larry Jaques" <lja...@diversify.invalid> wrote in message
news:5hjis5dhcb1di7tc2...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:38:50 -0700, the infamous "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <Pa...@Hovnanian.com> scrawled the following:
>
>>Hawke wrote:
>>>
>>> That is what the Royal Society panel assigned to look into the climate
>>> researchers supposedly guilty of lying about climate change found after
>>> looking into the matter. "Climategate" as it was called has been found
>>> to be no more valid than "whitewater" was. The only thing the scientists
>>> were guilty of was sloppy record keeping but not bad science.
>>
>>Sloppy record keeping IS bad science.
>
> Have Parakeet tell that to, um...(oh, who's the guy at CRU who stepped
> down?) Phil Jones, who admitted to manipulating (falsifying) climate
> data. "Lost" is data supporting CRU theories of global warming. Who
> could have guessed that might happen? He's no scientist; he's a
> freakin' politician who got caught and AFAIK, isn't in prison for it,
> either.
>
> ---
Take it easy on poor Hawke, his Socialist Utopia is already kaput. His
liberul politicians are destine to lose the House, Senate, Governors, Mayors
and Dog Catchers. AND his climate scam has been exposed to the world and
those idiots are nothing more than comic relief. So, he's doubled-up on his
anti-depressants and "mood enhancers". THEN, he knows all the socialist
damage his heroes have done will be quickly reversed after November.
Ed Huntress
"Buerste" <bue...@buerste.com> wrote in message
news:hqc2a9$1hf$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Damn, you almost had something going there, Tawwwwm, but it looks like your
"climate scam" pitch is losing steam.
Maybe you can gin something up about how you keep warm in your permanent
Cleveland darkness by setting your rivers on fire, and that it's actually an
environmental benefit. Is the Cuyahoga ready to burn again, or do you need
to pour more crap into it?
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
>>> Hawke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That is what the Royal Society panel assigned to look into the climate
>>>> researchers supposedly guilty of lying about climate change found after
>>>> looking into the matter. "Climategate" as it was called has been found
>>>> to be no more valid than "whitewater" was. The only thing the scientists
>>>> were guilty of was sloppy record keeping but not bad science.
>>>
>>> Sloppy record keeping IS bad science.
>>
>> Have Parakeet tell that to, um...(oh, who's the guy at CRU who stepped
>> down?) Phil Jones, who admitted to manipulating (falsifying) climate
>> data. "Lost" is data supporting CRU theories of global warming. Who
>> could have guessed that might happen? He's no scientist; he's a
>> freakin' politician who got caught and AFAIK, isn't in prison for it,
>> either.
>>
>> ---
>
> Take it easy on poor Hawke, his Socialist Utopia is already kaput. His
> liberul politicians are destine to lose the House, Senate, Governors, Mayors
> and Dog Catchers. AND his climate scam has been exposed to the world and
> those idiots are nothing more than comic relief. So, he's doubled-up on his
> anti-depressants and "mood enhancers". THEN, he knows all the socialist
> damage his heroes have done will be quickly reversed after November.
I know you right wingers like to pretend a lot. Like you pretend you are
rational, unemotional, logical, and go strictly by facts. But the truth
is a bit different. All I did was report what an article in the April
15th edition of the Sacramento Bee printed. So there is the citation.
Nothing I said was my opinion just what was reported in the newspaper
article. But you attack the messenger rather than for even one minute
question whether your views on the "climategate" story are right. So
your belief is all based on emotion. When presented with facts like I
did you still cling stubbornly to your original beliefs. Now it's
looking like there was nothing wrong with the conclusions of the
scientists but all you do is attack me and refuse to reexamine your own
views on the subject. Why should you though? You're so very good at
pretending.
You're also doing some more pretending when it comes to you thinking the
republicans are going to be in any position to reverse anything Obama
has done. I'll be there to remind you of that when you are disappointed
by the minimal gains the republicans make in Nov. Things are starting to
get too good for the republicans to benefit. By November nobody but
right wingers will want them back in office.
Hawke
Buerste
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hqcvks$7qe$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
Hawke wrote:
<snip>
> When presented with facts like I did...
> Hawke
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are NOT entitled to your own
facts. You seem to confuse the two.
Mark Rand
I think that's what he was telling you Tom...
Mark Rand
RTFM
Eregon
news:hqd581$gne$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
"Chicken" thinks that the two are identical...and that he is the sole
authority on everything...
Hawke
It seems that your are the one who is confused. I told you what the
report in the Sacramento Bee was. Maybe you need to go to the Sac Bee
website and read the article yourself.The story told about the
conclusions from the U.K.'s Royal Society when it had a panel look into
the so called climategate scandal. They reported the scientists to be
squeaky clean. Nothing there is a matter of my opinion. So you'll have
to explain where you see my opinion anywhere for it to be confused with
the facts. I gave no opinion. Which means you are awfully confused as to
the difference between opinion and facts. I can explain it to you if
you'd like.
Hawke