Climate Scientist Steps Down
mrl
MNMikeW
"mrl" <markr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b8a2753-5b03-4de7...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> He couldn't take the heat.
You mean lack of heat. The greatest fraud perpetrated on mankind is starting
to unravel.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
782d20...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
> He couldn't take the heat.
>
HAHAHA. One more conspiracy exposed. Add this to y2k,the banking crisis,
the iraq invasion, swine flu, and 911 truth. And that's just the last 10
years!!
Moderate
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7nnplqF...@mid.individual.net...
LOL, I was amazed at all the people who got sucked into this scam.
BAR
no_spam_@no_mail.com says...
Bye, bye research gravy train.
Bye, bye national and global taxing excuse.
I like this paragraph from:
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573
But Professor Plimer, of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, said that
to stop climate change Governments should find ways to prevent changes
to the Earth?s orbit and ocean currents and avoid explosions of
supernovae in space. Of the saga of the leaked emails, he said: ?If you
have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.?
Carbon
How do you know that climate change is a fraud?
Jack Hollis
>In article <4b16bfd0$0$5321$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>,
>no_spam_@no_mail.com says...
>>
>> "MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:7nnplqF...@mid.individual.net...
>> >
>> > "mrl" <markr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:6b8a2753-5b03-4de7...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>> >> He couldn't take the heat.
>> >
>> > You mean lack of heat. The greatest fraud perpetrated on mankind is
>> > starting to unravel.
>>
>> LOL, I was amazed at all the people who got sucked into this scam.
>
>Bye, bye research gravy train.
>
>Bye, bye national and global taxing excuse.
Don't bet on it. To some, global warming has the trappings of a
religious belief and for others, it's big business. Then there are
the environmentalists who couldn't care less if the science is good or
not, they just want to limit global industrialization as much as they
can. The momentum towards international treaties to reduce CO2
emissions wont be stopped by some indiscretions by a few scientists.
>But Professor Plimer, of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, said that
>to stop climate change Governments should find ways to prevent changes
>to the Earth's orbit and ocean currents and avoid explosions of
>supernovae in space. Of the saga of the leaked emails, he said: ?If you
>have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.?
I don't think there is any question that human activity is having some
effect in terms of global warming. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and humans
are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is also no
doubt that the global temperature has been warming since the end of
the Little Ice Age in the mid 19th Century.
However, anyone who tells you that they knows how much human activity
is adding to environmental warming, is talking out of their ass. There
is no way that scientists can reach "consensus" on something that is
so complex and has so many unknowns that it is beyond the ability of
science to measure.
assim...@borg.org
On 2-Dec-2009, Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com> wrote:
> There
> is no way that scientists can reach "consensus" on something that is
> so complex and has so many unknowns that it is beyond the ability of
> science to measure.
Science is not done by consensus; politics is!
--
bill-o
Moderate
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b1722d5$0$5091$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
The same way we know the rest of conspiracy theories are frauds. They
aren't based on facts.
BAR
xsle...@aol.com says...
>
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:34:40 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <4b16bfd0$0$5321$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>,
> >no_spam_@no_mail.com says...
> >>
> >> "MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:7nnplqF...@mid.individual.net...
> >> >
> >> > "mrl" <markr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:6b8a2753-5b03-4de7...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> He couldn't take the heat.
> >> >
> >> > You mean lack of heat. The greatest fraud perpetrated on mankind is
> >> > starting to unravel.
> >>
> >> LOL, I was amazed at all the people who got sucked into this scam.
> >
> >Bye, bye research gravy train.
> >
> >Bye, bye national and global taxing excuse.
>
> Don't bet on it. To some, global warming has the trappings of a
> religious belief and for others, it's big business. Then there are
> the environmentalists who couldn't care less if the science is good or
> not, they just want to limit global industrialization as much as they
> can. The momentum towards international treaties to reduce CO2
> emissions wont be stopped by some indiscretions by a few scientists.
"Indiscretions?" How about outright fraud.
> >But Professor Plimer, of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, said that
> >to stop climate change Governments should find ways to prevent changes
> >to the Earth's orbit and ocean currents and avoid explosions of
> >supernovae in space. Of the saga of the leaked emails, he said: ?If you
> >have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.?
>
> I don't think there is any question that human activity is having some
> effect in terms of global warming. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and humans
> are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is also no
> doubt that the global temperature has been warming since the end of
> the Little Ice Age in the mid 19th Century.
What caused the increases in CO2, pre-modern man, that were much greater
than the increase of CO2 in the past 8,000 years? The geological record
shows that the temperatures was 6C higher in the past and the CO2 was
much higher than it is today.
If man causes an increase of CO2, the question becomes can man exist
without increasing CO2? Should man care about the increased CO2? Are you
prepared to return to a hunter gatherer society?
What is our destiny? Are we do to be struck by a large meteor? How will
a meteor strike affect man and the planet?
> However, anyone who tells you that they knows how much human activity
> is adding to environmental warming, is talking out of their ass. There
> is no way that scientists can reach "consensus" on something that is
> so complex and has so many unknowns that it is beyond the ability of
> science to measure.
AGW is a myth the data that the UK Met Office has and that NASA has
shows a decline in temperature in the later half of the 20th century.
The whole affair is about the "scientists" unwillingness to share their
data and models for real peer review, not peer review by those who agree
with them.
William Clark
"Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote:
No, it is based on data. You know, data collected by scientists. Oh, my.
Moderate
"William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-A59C7E....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
Once again you jump into a topic you know very little about. Oh my. Please
elaborate on this data you speak of.
... let the deflection begin. LOL
MNMikeW
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b1722d5$0$5091$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Climate change itself is not. It has been doing it naturally for thousands
of years. And will continue to do so. Al Gore and the IPCC are the frauds.
MNMikeW
"William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-A59C7E....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
Data manipulated by fraudulent scientists. We will never know since they
threw out the origional data when requests to look at it started coming in.
William Clark
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
"Fraudulent" meaning, of course, any scientist whose considered opinion,
based on the available data, does not happen to agree with my
pre-conceived political prejudice, based on no data at all.
William Clark
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
Oh, God, this is soooo easy . . .
Try a few of these from my colleague (and member of the "100 Most
Important Scientists in the US").
Evidence of abrupt tropical climate change: past and present. L.G.
Thompson, Mosley-Thompson, E., Brecher, H., Davis, M.E., Leon, B., Les,
D., Mashiotta, T.A., Lin, P.-N., Mountain, K., 2006. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U.S.A. 103 (28), 10536.
Tropical glacier and ice core evidence of climate change on annual to
millennial time scales. L.G. Thompson, E. Mosley-Thompson, M.E. Davis,
P.-N. Lin, K. Henderson, T.A. Mashiotta, 2003. Climatic Change 59,
137-155.
Kilimanjaro ice core records: evidence of Holocene climate change in
tropical Africa. L.G. Thompson et al., 2002. Science 298 (5593),
589-593. doi:10.1126/science.1073198.
Ice core evidence for climate change in the Tropics: implications for
our future. L.G. Thompson, 2000. Quaternary Science Reviews 19, 19-35.
Tropical climate instability: the last glacial cycle from a
Qinghai-Tibetan ice core. L.G. Thompson, T. Yao, M.E. Davis, K.A.
Henderson, E. Mosley-Thompson, P.-N. Lin, J. Beer, H.-A. Synal, J.
Cole-Dai, J.F. Bolzan, 1997. Science 276 (5320), 1821-1825.
doi:10.1126/science.276.5320.1821.
dsc-ky
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> mrl <markrlon...@gmail.com> wrote in news:6b8a2753-5b03-4de7-b6ec-
> 782d2000b...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > He couldn't take the heat.
>
> HAHAHA. One more conspiracy exposed. Add this to y2k,the banking crisis,
> the iraq invasion, swine flu, and 911 truth. And that's just the last 10
> years!!
Well, there are 3 possibilities.
1) man is slowing down a natural cycle (warming or cooling)
2) man is having no effect at all on a natural cycle (warming or
cooling)
3) man is speeding up a natural cycle (warming or cooling)
In the end it doesn't amount to a hill of beans which it is... really.
MNMikeW
From Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann and others including James Hansen and
Michael Oppenheimer in Oct. 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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS
09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data
are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
From Jones to Raymond Bradley, Malcolm Hughes and Michael Mann on Feb. 21,
2005:
"PS: I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
Freedom of Information Act!"
A May 2009 e-mail from Jones allegedly told Mann to delete e-mails regarding
the Fourth IPCC draft and said Keith and Caspar would also delete the
correspondence.
I agree with Trenberth, the whole thing is a "travesty." One of the now
famous comments from the e-mails was from Jones to Mann and appeared to
indicate manipulation of scientific data. Jones wrote:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each
series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [Sic] from 1961 for
Keith's to hide the decline."
Moderate
I read some of Dr. Lonnie Thompson's abstracts. Some of it is very heady
stuff, but most of it covers thousands or years of the Holocene period. His
finding that precipitation has a greater effect on oxygen isotopes than
temperature in some ice cores was interesting. Dr. Thompson doesn't seem to
make any direct correlation, between man and the ice cores so perhaps you
could point out specifically what part of his research you find
significantly points to man's effect on global warming.
annika1980
>
> From Jones to Raymond Bradley, Malcolm Hughes and Michael Mann on Feb. 21,
> 2005:
>
> "PS: I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
> temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
> Freedom of Information Act!"
>
> A May 2009 e-mail from Jones allegedly told Mann to delete e-mails regarding
> the Fourth IPCC draft and said Keith and Caspar would also delete the
> correspondence.
>
> I agree with Trenberth, the whole thing is a "travesty." One of the now
> famous comments from the e-mails was from Jones to Mann and appeared to
> indicate manipulation of scientific data. Jones wrote:
>
> "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each
> series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [Sic] from 1961 for
> Keith's to hide the decline."
You forgot this one, also found in the hacked e-mails:
"Hey Jonesie, this is Tiger. Hey, I need you to do me a huge favor
and bump up the core temperatures over Norway about 20 degrees. I'm
trying to get my wife to move back. Hey thanks. Later. T."
---------------------------
How do we even know the e-mails weren't faked? On one side you have
the accumulated studies of almost all the world's reputable scientists
and climatologists. On the other you have a few hacked e-mails and
some crooked Senator from Oklahoma who has received over $1 Million in
donations from Big Oil and other energy concerns.
Moderate
"annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:26f85ec6-350e-486c...@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
*****************************************
A conspiracy theory of a conspiracy. I love it.
MNMikeW
"annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:26f85ec6-350e-486c...@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
---------------------------
Try over 1000 emails and various docs. There is a reason the scientist from
the ACU stepped down. They also admitted to deleting the original temp data
used for the models in direct violation of UKs FOI laws. Mann has stated the
emails are real.
Good tiger joke though :-)
BAR
@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, annik...@aol.com says...
They've given up on pushing the fake or edited e-mails story. They are
claiming that the content of the e-mails are being mis-interpreted. The
excuses are coming fast and furious but, please try and keep up.
Pretty soon the "hacked e-mails" story will go by the wayside too when
it comes out that the data and e-mails were from an insider, a whistle
blower.
BAR
no_spam_@no_mail.com says...
This ought to be good. Clark can ask Dr. Thompson the following
questions:
1) Does Dr. Thompson believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming?
2) Does Dr. Thompson believe in hiding data from peers.
3) Does Dr. Thompson believe in believe in deleting e-mails and other
materials that are subject to FOIA requests?
4) Does Dr. Thompson believe in muzzling those who hold opposing views
to his?
There are more questions that could be asked.
Jack Hollis
>> >Bye, bye research gravy train.
>> >
>> >Bye, bye national and global taxing excuse.
>>
>> Don't bet on it. To some, global warming has the trappings of a
>> religious belief and for others, it's big business. Then there are
>> the environmentalists who couldn't care less if the science is good or
>> not, they just want to limit global industrialization as much as they
>> can. The momentum towards international treaties to reduce CO2
>> emissions wont be stopped by some indiscretions by a few scientists.
>
>"Indiscretions?" How about outright fraud.
I would agree that what was going on at East Anglia Climate Research
Unit is out and out fraud. And it seems that this was not the only
place that was putting out fraudulent data. And you can't forget the
now discredited hockey stick diagram and the "mistakes" in the NASA
data on the warmest year.
Then they exacerbate their fraud by destroying the raw data. I don't
know how much money it cost to collect all that data, but my guess is
it was a lot. Certainly worth enough to consider criminal charges if
there was public funding for any of the research.
Jack Hollis
>> I don't think there is any question that human activity is having some
>> effect in terms of global warming. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and humans
>> are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is also no
>> doubt that the global temperature has been warming since the end of
>> the Little Ice Age in the mid 19th Century.
>
>What caused the increases in CO2, pre-modern man, that were much greater
>than the increase of CO2 in the past 8,000 years? The geological record
>shows that the temperatures was 6C higher in the past and the CO2 was
>much higher than it is today.
>
>If man causes an increase of CO2, the question becomes can man exist
>without increasing CO2? Should man care about the increased CO2? Are you
>prepared to return to a hunter gatherer society?
It is possible to produce virtually all the energy we need without
producing CO2 without degrading our lifestyles that much. Most of the
technology, like solar and wind, is much more expensive, with nuclear
power being the big exception. Cars could be made to run on
electricity or hydrogen, but also at a cost. So the question remains,
is there any reason why we should pay the extra money?
It's also true that CO2 levels have been higher in the past than they
are now and that temperatures have also been higher. Both have
happened before the industrial revolution. So it's impossible to
claim that the increase in global temperature is unprecedented.
Therefore it's impossible to say that what we observe now is not just
part of the natural cycle of climate change that has been going on
since the earth formed an atmosphere billions of years ago.
However, it is also very likely that humans are having some effect.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and humans are adding to the CO2 in the
atmosphere. But the effect of human generated CO2 is only a percent
of a percent of a percent of the total factors responsible for global
temperature.
William Clark
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
Nice try, but pinching a few phrases out of the abstract doesn't make
you look like an expert, just like another loser trying to pretend he
knows what he is talking about. Tell you what, why don't you actually
read the articles, then come back and we'll chat about them? Oh, and
please don't try the old "you tell me what is in them" trick. It is as
transparent as glass.
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
There are, such as
Is the moon made of green cheese? Which would be about as smart (and no
more obvious) that this pathetic attempt to deflect.
BAR
state.edu>, wcl...@colnospamumbus.rr.com says...
> > This ought to be good. Clark can ask Dr. Thompson the following
> > questions:
> >
> > 1) Does Dr. Thompson believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming?
> > 2) Does Dr. Thompson believe in hiding data from peers.
> > 3) Does Dr. Thompson believe in believe in deleting e-mails and other
> > materials that are subject to FOIA requests?
> > 4) Does Dr. Thompson believe in muzzling those who hold opposing views
> > to his?
> >
> > There are more questions that could be asked.
>
> There are, such as
>
> Is the moon made of green cheese? Which would be about as smart (and no
> more obvious) that this pathetic attempt to deflect.
The Global Warming advocates, Jones and Mann, have been proved to be
frauds by their own admission. They are not disputing the content of the
e-mails any more. The only question left is when to prosecute them and
whether to rescind their degrees. What college or university wants to be
associated with them now?
assim...@borg.org
On 3-Dec-2009, William Clark <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> > > How do you know that climate change is a fraud?
> >
> > The same way we know the rest of conspiracy theories are frauds. They
> > aren't based on facts.
>
> No, it is based on data. You know, data collected by scientists. Oh, my.
Data that nobody else can access. That is not science!
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 3-Dec-2009, William Clark <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> > > No, it is based on data. You know, data collected by scientists. Oh,
> > > my.
> >
> > Data manipulated by fraudulent scientists. We will never know since they
> >
> > threw out the origional data when requests to look at it started coming
> > in.
>
> "Fraudulent" meaning, of course, any scientist whose considered opinion,
> based on the available data, does not happen to agree with my
> pre-conceived political prejudice, based on no data at all.
If they can't/won't make it available, there is no data, just their word,
which we've seen, is worthless.
--
bill-o
Moderate
"William Clark" <wcl...@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wclark2-49D000...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
I am not trying to look like an expert. I am trying to find something in
your source that supports your claim. So far nothing. I did find an
article about a speech Dr. Thompson made that he was not sure why the
glaciers on Kilimanjaro were shrinking. Since Lonnie is your buddy, perhaps
you could ask him to post some data.
Like I said I am not trying to be an expert and have no need to pay for
access to Dr. Lonnie's research. I will not try the old "you tell me what
is in them" trick. It is obvious I have read more of Dr. Lonnie's research
than you have.
http://www.articlesbase.com/nature-articles/climate-change-and-kilimanjaro-1436727.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070501-kilimanjaro.html
William Clark
"Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote:
Right, sure.
William Clark
assim...@borg.org wrote:
Listen, I know it fits your pre-conceived stance on global warming, but
I am sorry to have to tell you that this East Anglia nonsense is
actually a drop in the scientific bucket of climate change data. This is
a minor university, where a few over eager staff tried to make a name
for themselves and got found out. Big deal - there are over 4,000
researchers looking at the whole climate change issue, and the stupidity
of a half dozen or so (much as you wish it to) does not change the
overwhelming weight of the findings of the rest. Sorry, but there it is.
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
You name two out of roughly 4,000 climate change researchers, in one of
the UK's most minor universities. Wow. On that basis, I am waiting for
you to call the entire GoP a bunch of lecherous libertines because
Mssrs. Vitter, Hanson, Burton, and Craig got caught in sexual
indiscretions. You will, won't you?
You see how dumb and self serving that tactic is? No? I thought not.
Moderate
Deflect? Read the header of the thread. BAR's questions are on topic and
the crux of the discussion.
William Clark
assim...@borg.org wrote:
And that of the other 4,000 climate researchers? I know you would love
to throw that particular baby out with the bath water, but it just
doesn't work.
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
Good, we are making progress. But, Dr. Phil Jones is a contributor to
the IPCC report along with Dr. Mike Mann of Penn State University which
is not a minor university. When something is split the stain runs deep.
How many other "climate" researchers have based their research on the
flawed, made-up or just plain false data from Jones and Mann? The whole
of the body of work in "climate research" has come under the eye of
suspicion and requires scrutiny at all levels.
BAR
no_spam_@no_mail.com says...
> >> This ought to be good. Clark can ask Dr. Thompson the following
> >> questions:
> >>
> >> 1) Does Dr. Thompson believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming?
> >> 2) Does Dr. Thompson believe in hiding data from peers.
> >> 3) Does Dr. Thompson believe in believe in deleting e-mails and other
> >> materials that are subject to FOIA requests?
> >> 4) Does Dr. Thompson believe in muzzling those who hold opposing views
> >> to his?
> >>
> >> There are more questions that could be asked.
> >
> > There are, such as
> >
> > Is the moon made of green cheese? Which would be about as smart (and no
> > more obvious) that this pathetic attempt to deflect.
>
> Deflect? Read the header of the thread. BAR's questions are on topic and
> the crux of the discussion.
Clark knows the answers to the questions and the answer to all of my
questions is mostlikely and emphatic no from Dr. Thompson.
The Climate Change/Global Warming crowd's biggest problem now is that
the basic or foundational research has been questioned and the integrity
of the researchers, research and subsequent research is all under
suspicion.
It appears that the checks and balances in the scientific community have
failed or were ignored in favor of obtaining grants or pushing political
agendas.
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
Fraud is fraud.
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
Does any of the research of those 4000 "climate researchers" use the
data from Jones or Mann?
Billy you can try and explain it away as a couple of rouge scientists
but, the people of the world see it differently.
bkn...@conramp.net
>Billy you can try and explain it away as a couple of rouge scientists
>but, the people of the world see it differently.
Rouge scientists? Now you're believing Estee Lauder's climate
research? :-)
BK
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
Good, so you do accept that the GoP is immoral, given the proclivities
of Vitter, Craig, Hanson, Burton, etc. Glad we have that cleared up.
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> In article <4b190be4$0$5347$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>,
> no_spam_@no_mail.com says...
> > >> This ought to be good. Clark can ask Dr. Thompson the following
> > >> questions:
> > >>
> > >> 1) Does Dr. Thompson believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming?
> > >> 2) Does Dr. Thompson believe in hiding data from peers.
> > >> 3) Does Dr. Thompson believe in believe in deleting e-mails and other
> > >> materials that are subject to FOIA requests?
> > >> 4) Does Dr. Thompson believe in muzzling those who hold opposing views
> > >> to his?
> > >>
> > >> There are more questions that could be asked.
> > >
> > > There are, such as
> > >
> > > Is the moon made of green cheese? Which would be about as smart (and no
> > > more obvious) that this pathetic attempt to deflect.
> >
> > Deflect? Read the header of the thread. BAR's questions are on topic and
> > the crux of the discussion.
>
> Clark knows the answers to the questions and the answer to all of my
> questions is mostlikely and emphatic no from Dr. Thompson.
Wrong - number one.
>
> The Climate Change/Global Warming crowd's biggest problem now is that
> the basic or foundational research has been questioned and the integrity
> of the researchers, research and subsequent research is all under
> suspicion.
The "crowd" is not defined by these few ethically challenged members,
any more than the GoP is by its libertines. Get a grip.
>
> It appears that the checks and balances in the scientific community have
> failed or were ignored in favor of obtaining grants or pushing political
> agendas.
Actually, it would appear that they have worked quite well in outing
those who would manipulate statistics. Perhaps you could apply the same
pompous standards of ethics to your GoP Senators busy lying about health
care?
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
Unless it comes from a Republican - then it is an "excusable lapse".
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
No, all but a few (perhaps) of these will have their own data. Sorry.
>
> Billy you can try and explain it away as a couple of rouge scientists
> but, the people of the world see it differently.
A couple of "rouge" scientists? Are we getting into cross dressing, or
just infatuated with the Palin creature? The important point is that
preponderance of the 4,000 other scientists will "see it differently".
The people of the world, unless they have studies the data, are as
ignorant on this topic as you are, and should not (unlike you) jump to
try to use it to serve their own petty political agendas.
MNMikeW
You fail to see how much influence Mann and Jones had in the IPCC.
MNMikeW
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote in message
news:4b190be4$0$5347$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
Moderate
Nice deflection. You never disappoint. :-)
MNMikeW
Nice dodge. Par for the course for you though.
MNMikeW
And there are over 31,000 reseachers that say AGW is bunk.
MNMikeW
You're unbelievable.
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>
> In article <MPG.2582da973...@news.giganews.com>,
> BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <4b190be4$0$5347$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>,
> > no_spam_@no_mail.com says...
> > > >> This ought to be good. Clark can ask Dr. Thompson the following
> > > >> questions:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1) Does Dr. Thompson believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming?
> > > >> 2) Does Dr. Thompson believe in hiding data from peers.
> > > >> 3) Does Dr. Thompson believe in believe in deleting e-mails and other
> > > >> materials that are subject to FOIA requests?
> > > >> 4) Does Dr. Thompson believe in muzzling those who hold opposing views
> > > >> to his?
> > > >>
> > > >> There are more questions that could be asked.
> > > >
> > > > There are, such as
> > > >
> > > > Is the moon made of green cheese? Which would be about as smart (and no
> > > > more obvious) that this pathetic attempt to deflect.
> > >
> > > Deflect? Read the header of the thread. BAR's questions are on topic and
> > > the crux of the discussion.
> >
> > Clark knows the answers to the questions and the answer to all of my
> > questions is mostlikely and emphatic no from Dr. Thompson.
>
> Wrong - number one.
So, Dr. Thompson believes in AGW? Dr. Thompson believes in hiding data
from his peers? Dr. Thompson believes in destroying data that is under a
FOIA request? Dr. Thompson believes in muzzling those who hold views
that are in opposition to his.
Have you confirmed this with him or is this another example of you
posting to USENET from your iPhone at the turn.
> >
> > The Climate Change/Global Warming crowd's biggest problem now is that
> > the basic or foundational research has been questioned and the integrity
> > of the researchers, research and subsequent research is all under
> > suspicion.
>
> The "crowd" is not defined by these few ethically challenged members,
> any more than the GoP is by its libertines. Get a grip.
Stay on topic Billy.
> >
> > It appears that the checks and balances in the scientific community have
> > failed or were ignored in favor of obtaining grants or pushing political
> > agendas.
>
> Actually, it would appear that they have worked quite well in outing
> those who would manipulate statistics. Perhaps you could apply the same
> pompous standards of ethics to your GoP Senators busy lying about health
> care?
You are kidding? The dumped data was in the hands of the BBC for 5 weeks
before the rest of the world was made aware of it. Why was the BBC
withholding this data? Were they protecting "those who would manipulate
statistics?"
You can try and explain away the gross lapses in scientific ethics and
integrity all you want. The AGW crowd has been exposed as nothing more
than a bunch of money grubbing thieves.
MNMikeW
There is nobody more ignorant on AGW here than you.
BAR
No, I do not accept your premise regarding the GOP or any of its
members. But, it just proves that you have lost the AGW/CC argument.
Common sence +1
Politicized science = -100
BAR
Really? Where did they get their data?
> >
> > Billy you can try and explain it away as a couple of rouge scientists
> > but, the people of the world see it differently.
>
> A couple of "rouge" scientists? Are we getting into cross dressing, or
> just infatuated with the Palin creature? The important point is that
> preponderance of the 4,000 other scientists will "see it differently".
> The people of the world, unless they have studies the data, are as
> ignorant on this topic as you are, and should not (unlike you) jump to
> try to use it to serve their own petty political agendas.
Great "unless they have studies the data?" Make sure that your spelling
and grammar and language usage is without error before you start chiding
others for spelling mistakes.
Ignorant of the topic, right? I see through the bullshit that the
governments and scientists have been pushing. The governments could care
less about saving the planet they see a method to fatten their coffers
and to control their populations. The scientists see a steady stream of
research dollars that just happens to track along with the governments
goals. It is a parasitic relationship. If AGW is proved false then the
governments have lost a source of revenue and in turn the scientists
have lost their access to research funds.
What made the glaciers recede prior to man producing CO2?
Climate is not constant. The Earth is not constant. Change is always
happening and will always happen regardless of whether humans are on
Earth.
The rise and fall of the dinosaurs should give you pause and make you
realize that nothing is forever.
Dinosaur_Sr
> In article <clark-3F6415.10504204122...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <MPG.2582da9735410506989...@news.giganews.com>,
> > BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <4b190be4$0$5347$bbae4...@news.suddenlink.net>,
The problem here is science getting too political. The fact is that
overall, the earth is in a prolonged cooling trend, and that is over
millions of years. In the past, CO2 levels, for example, have been
much higher than now, and life managed. Whether temperatures are
rising or falling some small amount over some small blip of time mean
anything is more of a political than a scientific issue, and science
should stay out of it. The problem is we get these idiots whose
politics is more important than their science, and they rightly so
should resign or be fired.
There is no data to suggest that rising CO2 levels will do any harm,
and a correlation of a rise in the Earth's temperatures with CO2 is in
absolute fact not indicative of any causality. Every scientist learns
very early on that correlation is not indicative of causality.
What bothers me the most about this is that there are very real
environmental issues that are doing real damage, and we ignore them;
things like water use and habitat destruction, for example.
IMHO the whole CO2 argument is bogus. And FWIW, the greatest crime in
science to to massage the data to fit your theory. It is done a lot,
BTW, and when it is discovered, the perpetrators are usually
blackballed.
Dinosaur_Sr
> On Dec 2, 1:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>
> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > mrl <markrlon...@gmail.com> wrote in news:6b8a2753-5b03-4de7-b6ec-
> > 782d2000b...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > He couldn't take the heat.
>
> > the iraq invasion, swine flu, and 911 truth. And that's just the last 10
> > years!!
>
> Well, there are 3 possibilities.
>
> 1) man is slowing down a natural cycle (warming or cooling)
> 2) man is having no effect at all on a natural cycle (warming or
> cooling)
> 3) man is speeding up a natural cycle (warming or cooling)
>
> In the end it doesn't amount to a hill of beans which it is... really.
Great post! Really hits the nail on the head.
William Clark
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
Really? Cite, please. And please add their research credentials to pose
as experts on this.
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
Not a bit - it just proves that your approach to denying the existence
of GW is a crock. Thank you (and, by the way, the word is "sense").
William Clark
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
And you guys are totally hypocritical.
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
No, Lonnie is with the other 4,000. But you wouldn't understand that.
>
> Have you confirmed this with him or is this another example of you
> posting to USENET from your iPhone at the turn.
>
> > >
> > > The Climate Change/Global Warming crowd's biggest problem now is that
> > > the basic or foundational research has been questioned and the integrity
> > > of the researchers, research and subsequent research is all under
> > > suspicion.
> >
> > The "crowd" is not defined by these few ethically challenged members,
> > any more than the GoP is by its libertines. Get a grip.
>
> Stay on topic Billy.
Got you with that one, eh? It is hard to deny hypocrisy like yours.
>
> > >
> > > It appears that the checks and balances in the scientific community have
> > > failed or were ignored in favor of obtaining grants or pushing political
> > > agendas.
> >
> > Actually, it would appear that they have worked quite well in outing
> > those who would manipulate statistics. Perhaps you could apply the same
> > pompous standards of ethics to your GoP Senators busy lying about health
> > care?
>
> You are kidding? The dumped data was in the hands of the BBC for 5 weeks
> before the rest of the world was made aware of it. Why was the BBC
> withholding this data? Were they protecting "those who would manipulate
> statistics?"
A whole five weeks? Goodness, what a lifetime. Do you have any idea of
the time frame for reviewing scientific data? No, of course you don't -
you're not a scientist, and by the standards that you would force upon
others, should not even express an opinion on CC and GW, since you have
neither a BS, MS, or PhD in the field.
William Clark
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
And you are, of course, an expert in that. I'm sure you can tell us
precisely how much. Go on.
William Clark
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
No, par for the course from the Moderator. It is beyond his
comprehension level.
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
From their own research.
>
> > >
> > > Billy you can try and explain it away as a couple of rouge scientists
> > > but, the people of the world see it differently.
> >
> > A couple of "rouge" scientists? Are we getting into cross dressing, or
> > just infatuated with the Palin creature? The important point is that
> > preponderance of the 4,000 other scientists will "see it differently".
> > The people of the world, unless they have studies the data, are as
> > ignorant on this topic as you are, and should not (unlike you) jump to
> > try to use it to serve their own petty political agendas.
>
> Great "unless they have studies the data?" Make sure that your spelling
> and grammar and language usage is without error before you start chiding
> others for spelling mistakes.
>
> Ignorant of the topic, right? I see through the bullshit that the
> governments and scientists have been pushing. The governments could care
> less about saving the planet they see a method to fatten their coffers
> and to control their populations. The scientists see a steady stream of
> research dollars that just happens to track along with the governments
> goals. It is a parasitic relationship. If AGW is proved false then the
> governments have lost a source of revenue and in turn the scientists
> have lost their access to research funds.
>
Geez, do you have Reds under your bed, too? Of course you do, this is
all a big government plot specifically designed to get at you. Poor
little Bert. Actually, these guys would get far more money if they
peddled the oil companies' line - just like the cancer "researchers" who
took tobacco company money to show that smoking was not harmful to
health.
> What made the glaciers recede prior to man producing CO2?
If you knew the data you would know that CO2 is not the key issue.
>
> Climate is not constant. The Earth is not constant. Change is always
> happening and will always happen regardless of whether humans are on
> Earth.
The issue is not climate change, it is the rate of climate change.
>
> The rise and fall of the dinosaurs should give you pause and make you
> realize that nothing is forever.
Oh, I thought they were all put on the earth 6,000 years ago, or don;t
you believe what Ms. Palin says?
William Clark
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
Ah, the voice of the definitive authority. On nothing.
Moderate
I am sure Mike will start posting the 31,000 credentials right after you
post the credentials of the 4000 who support AGW.
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
> > >
> > > Good, so you do accept that the GoP is immoral, given the proclivities
> > > of Vitter, Craig, Hanson, Burton, etc. Glad we have that cleared up.
> >
> > No, I do not accept your premise regarding the GOP or any of its
> > members. But, it just proves that you have lost the AGW/CC argument.
> >
> > Common sence +1
> > Politicized science = -100
>
> Not a bit - it just proves that your approach to denying the existence
> of GW is a crock. Thank you (and, by the way, the word is "sense").
When they, Jones and Mann and the other co-conspirators, cannot come up
with an excuse, I mean explanation, for the cooling in the later half of
the 20th century what is their to deny. When the data says it is getting
cooler you can't argue that the data is false? Oh, wait a minute. There
is always the infamous "computer models" that add a degree here and a
couple of degrees there and magically you come up with a hockey stick
graph.
No paragraph berating me about a misspelling, we are making progress on
many fronts today.
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
> > >> > Listen, I know it fits your pre-conceived stance on global warming, but
> > >> > I am sorry to have to tell you that this East Anglia nonsense is
> > >> > actually a drop in the scientific bucket of climate change data. This
> > >> > is
> > >> > a minor university, where a few over eager staff tried to make a name
> > >> > for themselves and got found out. Big deal - there are over 4,000
> > >> > researchers looking at the whole climate change issue, and the
> > >> > stupidity
> > >> > of a half dozen or so (much as you wish it to) does not change the
> > >> > overwhelming weight of the findings of the rest. Sorry, but there it
> > >> > is.
> > >>
> > >> Good, we are making progress. But, Dr. Phil Jones is a contributor to
> > >> the IPCC report along with Dr. Mike Mann of Penn State University which
> > >> is not a minor university. When something is split the stain runs deep.
> > >> How many other "climate" researchers have based their research on the
> > >> flawed, made-up or just plain false data from Jones and Mann? The whole
> > >> of the body of work in "climate research" has come under the eye of
> > >> suspicion and requires scrutiny at all levels.
> > >
> > > Good, so you do accept that the GoP is immoral, given the proclivities
> > > of Vitter, Craig, Hanson, Burton, etc. Glad we have that cleared up.
> >
> > You're unbelievable.
>
> And you guys are totally hypocritical.
>
Hypocritical? I haven't believed the "climate change alarmists" since
the 70's when they said there was a coming ice age. Then when somebody
said it was getting warmer they all dropped the ice age mantra and
started on the global warming mantra. Somewhere along the line the
decided to switch to "climate change." But, we all know that the climate
changes all of the time.
Please tell me what caused the glaciers that covered half of North
America and Northern Europe to recede? Was it a good or bad that the
glaciers receded? From Canada", the US's and Europe's perspective it was
a good thing.
MNMikeW
Actually for the IPCC it IS the key issue.
>>
>> Climate is not constant. The Earth is not constant. Change is always
>> happening and will always happen regardless of whether humans are on
>> Earth.
>
> The issue is not climate change, it is the rate of climate change.
You mean the rate of cooling happening since 1998?
>>
>> The rise and fall of the dinosaurs should give you pause and make you
>> realize that nothing is forever.
>
> Oh, I thought they were all put on the earth 6,000 years ago, or don;t
> you believe what Ms. Palin says?
Yet another typical Clarkism.
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
Your assertion that they are minor players is non-sense and just an
attempt to minimize the damage that the two of them and their cronies
have done to the scientific community.
MNMikeW
As soon as you post the credentials of the 4,000 you claim.
MNMikeW
Stick to making dentures Clark.
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
> > Ignorant of the topic, right? I see through the bullshit that the
> > governments and scientists have been pushing. The governments could care
> > less about saving the planet they see a method to fatten their coffers
> > and to control their populations. The scientists see a steady stream of
> > research dollars that just happens to track along with the governments
> > goals. It is a parasitic relationship. If AGW is proved false then the
> > governments have lost a source of revenue and in turn the scientists
> > have lost their access to research funds.
> >
> Geez, do you have Reds under your bed, too? Of course you do, this is
> all a big government plot specifically designed to get at you. Poor
> little Bert. Actually, these guys would get far more money if they
> peddled the oil companies' line - just like the cancer "researchers" who
> took tobacco company money to show that smoking was not harmful to
> health.
Just remember what I said and when I said it.
> > What made the glaciers recede prior to man producing CO2?
>
> If you knew the data you would know that CO2 is not the key issue.
Ok Mr. know-it-all, explain it to me, if you even understand it
yourself.
> >
> > Climate is not constant. The Earth is not constant. Change is always
> > happening and will always happen regardless of whether humans are on
> > Earth.
>
> The issue is not climate change, it is the rate of climate change.
Oh, ok. Explain why the later half of the 20th century was cooler? Is it
an oscillation problem? Is it the constant shifting of the climate from
hot to cold going to cause the earth to wobble off its axis and fall
jump out of its current orbit?
> >
> > The rise and fall of the dinosaurs should give you pause and make you
> > realize that nothing is forever.
>
> Oh, I thought they were all put on the earth 6,000 years ago, or don;t
> you believe what Ms. Palin says?
I am not a fundie Christian but my neighbors are.
Again, the scientific community has one big black eye and you have Jones
and Mann to thank for it.
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
> > You are kidding? The dumped data was in the hands of the BBC for 5 weeks
> > before the rest of the world was made aware of it. Why was the BBC
> > withholding this data? Were they protecting "those who would manipulate
> > statistics?"
>
> A whole five weeks? Goodness, what a lifetime. Do you have any idea of
> the time frame for reviewing scientific data? No, of course you don't -
> you're not a scientist, and by the standards that you would force upon
> others, should not even express an opinion on CC and GW, since you have
> neither a BS, MS, or PhD in the field.
If you are going to hold yourself out as an expert on a topic or field
then you had better be able to defend your expertise publicly at a
moments notice. Hiding data, conspiring to prevent publication of
opposing views and other nefarious activities are not those typically
ascribed to someone holding a PhD. Or are they, you tell me?
It appears that Jones and Mann didn't rely upon their vaunted degrees
because they just decided to make up the data to fit their pre-conceived
conclusions.
> >
> > You can try and explain away the gross lapses in scientific ethics and
> > integrity all you want. The AGW crowd has been exposed as nothing more
> > than a bunch of money grubbing thieves.
No response on my paragraph immediately above? Hmmmm.
Moderate
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7nt6etF...@mid.individual.net...
Now that was funny.
William Clark
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
OK, you don't anything on the mythical "31,000".
As I thought.
William Clark
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
He has no "31,000" - get a grip.
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
Billy, you were the first to state "there are over 4,000 researchers
looking at the whole climate change issue." Backup your statement or
retract it.
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
Just like you have no "4000" who support AGW.
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
Of course you haven't. Nothing to do with any science- it is simply
politically unacceptable to you. Ergo, it MUST be wrong.
>
> Please tell me what caused the glaciers that covered half of North
> America and Northern Europe to recede? Was it a good or bad that the
> glaciers receded? From Canada", the US's and Europe's perspective it was
> a good thing.
Is it good or bad that the glaciers are now not just receding , but
doing so at record rates?
MNMikeW
And over 9000 of them have PhD's.
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
OK, so you are anally fixated on these three, in order that you can deny
the evidence presented by the other 4,000. Fine, whatever. You simply do
not have the first clue about the scientific method, or how research
data are used to make predictions. I assume that you have not seen the
data that confirm that the cooling trend up to the 20th century has now
reversed?
I suggest that you also read a little about aerosols. You may think you
are making progress, but the reverse is clearly the view.
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
The "AGW crowd"? You have three out of 4,000, and that condemns all of
them? Good, then you DO accept that the entire GoP is without moral
scruple. Now we have real progress.
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
OK, then prove to me that they are anything else, other than staff at a
minor university. And stop avoiding the question of their influence on
the IPCC.
William Clark
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
Pathetic - even by your low standards. Just pathetic.
William Clark
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
Little things please little minds.
And they don't come any littler than . . .
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
Read and learn.
>
> > >
> > > The rise and fall of the dinosaurs should give you pause and make you
> > > realize that nothing is forever.
> >
> > Oh, I thought they were all put on the earth 6,000 years ago, or don;t
> > you believe what Ms. Palin says?
>
> I am not a fundie Christian but my neighbors are.
>
> Again, the scientific community has one big black eye and you have Jones
> and Mann to thank for it.
BS - they are minor players in a large field. Or do you believe that the
GoP has "one big black eye" because Larry Craig peddled male sex in
Minneapolis Airport?
William Clark
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
> > Hypocritical? I haven't believed the "climate change alarmists" since
> > the 70's when they said there was a coming ice age. Then when somebody
> > said it was getting warmer they all dropped the ice age mantra and
> > started on the global warming mantra. Somewhere along the line the
> > decided to switch to "climate change." But, we all know that the climate
> > changes all of the time.
>
> Of course you haven't. Nothing to do with any science- it is simply
> politically unacceptable to you. Ergo, it MUST be wrong.
The Ice Age/Global Warming/Climate Change scientific community needs to
back and do some basic research, using raw data, and come back to us in
15 or 20 years and give us a status report.
Too many predictions have beem made over the past 40 years that haven't
borne out and when the same group of scientists keep changing their
minds about what is happening like they are flipping through the pages
of a book it doesn't leave you with any confidence in their abilities.
> >
> > Please tell me what caused the glaciers that covered half of North
> > America and Northern Europe to recede? Was it a good or bad that the
> > glaciers receded? From Canada", the US's and Europe's perspective it was
> > a good thing.
>
> Is it good or bad that the glaciers are now not just receding , but
> doing so at record rates?
It is a natural cycle. The glaciers are receding and have been receding
for 10,000 years. What makes you think we have to stop it from occuring.
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
Where is the data? More specifically, where is the raw data?
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
What is the "GoP" you keep speaking of, I am not familiar with an
organization know by those letters. If you want to talk about the GOP
then let's talk away.
Are you having fun defending the your brothers in the scientific
community?
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
> > >> There is nobody more ignorant on AGW here than you.
> > >
> > > Ah, the voice of the definitive authority. On nothing.
> >
> > Stick to making dentures Clark.
>
> Pathetic - even by your low standards. Just pathetic.
I thought you were proud of the work you did for the betterment of
dental devices. Hell, for the toothless masses you are their hero.
Carbon
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4b1722d5$0$5091$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:23:53 -0600, MNMikeW wrote:
>>> "mrl" <markr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6b8a2753-5b03-4de7-
b6ec-782...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> He couldn't take the heat.
>>>
>>> You mean lack of heat. The greatest fraud perpetrated on mankind is
>>> starting to unravel.
>>
>> How do you know that climate change is a fraud?
>
> The same way we know the rest of conspiracy theories are frauds. They
> aren't based on facts.
How do you know?
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
> > Oh, ok. Explain why the later half of the 20th century was cooler? Is it
> > an oscillation problem? Is it the constant shifting of the climate from
> > hot to cold going to cause the earth to wobble off its axis and fall
> > jump out of its current orbit?
>
> http://tiny.cc/b4y2U
>
> Read and learn.
Where is the data!
> >
> > > >
> > > > The rise and fall of the dinosaurs should give you pause and make you
> > > > realize that nothing is forever.
> > >
> > > Oh, I thought they were all put on the earth 6,000 years ago, or don;t
> > > you believe what Ms. Palin says?
> >
> > I am not a fundie Christian but my neighbors are.
> >
> > Again, the scientific community has one big black eye and you have Jones
> > and Mann to thank for it.
>
> BS - they are minor players in a large field. Or do you believe that the
> GoP has "one big black eye" because Larry Craig peddled male sex in
> Minneapolis Airport?
Are you upset that he didn't tap his foot towards your stall?
Dinosaur_Sr
state.edu> wrote:
> In article <7nt67rF3n6qk...@mid.individual.net>,
>
>
>
> "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> > "William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> >news:clark-04C72A....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > > BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> > >> In article <clark-593E7C.10554504122...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> > >> state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>
> > >> > In article <MPG.2582de2a69dbb4ec989...@news.giganews.com>,
> > >> > BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > In article <clark-5CA704.08192704122...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> > >> > > state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>
> > >> > > > In article <4b18a618$0$2965$882e0...@news.ThunderNews.com>,
Now there's some bunk. I suppose one is supposed to be concerned about
some one's credentials and not critically review anything.
the most glaring lunacy is the notion that the presumed increase in
temperature is due to human causes. They have no assessment of any
sort of cause, just correlation. The correlation is based on a model,
not real data to boot.
Do I need to reference the fact that NSF funds studies of global
warming and funds studies of human effects on "global warming". It
specifically does not fund studies to assess if global warming is
occurring, or general causes. Of course anyone can go to NSF.gov and
look at the programs for themselves.
You know what is really interesting too, as a side issue. When I
looked up the specific heat of CO2 as opposed to water, I couldn't
find much. I did find the specific heat of CO2 after a bit of
searching. I didn't, however, find any information as to how much heat
is retained by CO2 as compared to water. Water is a very serious
greenhouse gas, but CO2? I wonder why there is no readily available
explicit statement of how much heat is absorbed by a mole of CO2?
Dinosaur_Sr
> In article <clark-8822C0.17205104122...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
I remember when people were worried about ice ages. The most
reasonable prediction, IMHO, was that you would get an isolation of
polar weather systems..ie, when the tropical air descends and moves
mostly back to the tropics, normally a bit goes towards the
poles...but if that didn't happen, or happened less, regions north and
south of the tropics would cool very rapidly. You could literally get
an instant ice age as the moisture precipitated out of the air in
response to lower temperatures...and it may be that human caused
global warming is preventing this...just as likely as any other
theoretical prediction!
Carbon
> In article <clark-E3EB81....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>> In article <MPG.258246e63...@news.giganews.com>, BAR
>> <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Global Warming advocates, Jones and Mann, have been proved to be
>>> frauds by their own admission. They are not disputing the content of
>>> the e-mails any more. The only question left is when to prosecute
>>> them and whether to rescind their degrees. What college or
>>> university wants to be associated with them now?
>>
>> You name two out of roughly 4,000 climate change researchers, in one
>> of the UK's most minor universities. Wow. On that basis, I am waiting
>> for you to call the entire GoP a bunch of lecherous libertines
>> because Mssrs. Vitter, Hanson, Burton, and Craig got caught in sexual
>> indiscretions. You will, won't you?
>>
>> You see how dumb and self serving that tactic is? No? I thought not.
>
You mean like trying to discredit an entire field of study--which you
know little or nothing about--due to the actions of a couple of
douchebags? That's a kind of fraud too, right?
BAR
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
I am not trying to discredit an entire field of study. I question the
motives of many of the primary researches in the field of study. I've
never believed in anthropogenic global warming and the convenient switch
to climate change didn't do anything for those whose motives are purely
political or oriented towards grabbing research dollars.
Fraud is still fraud.
Carbon
> In article <clark-11D40C....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>
>> Listen, I know it fits your pre-conceived stance on global warming,
>> but I am sorry to have to tell you that this East Anglia nonsense is
>> actually a drop in the scientific bucket of climate change data. This
>> is a minor university, where a few over eager staff tried to make a
>> name for themselves and got found out. Big deal - there are over
>> 4,000 researchers looking at the whole climate change issue, and the
>> stupidity of a half dozen or so (much as you wish it to) does not
>> change the overwhelming weight of the findings of the rest. Sorry,
>> but there it is.
>
> the IPCC report along with Dr. Mike Mann of Penn State University
> which is not a minor university. When something is split the stain
> runs deep. How many other "climate" researchers have based their
> research on the flawed, made-up or just plain false data from Jones
> and Mann? The whole of the body of work in "climate research" has come
> under the eye of suspicion and requires scrutiny at all levels.
Let's try a simple exercise in logic: A couple of guys in a particular
scientific field behave unethically and get caught doing it. Does this
prove that the entire field of study is a fraud? A simple yes or no will
do just fine.