Warm THIS!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Wow. Before you throw stones, you really need to get a clue. Maybe try and understand what we are talking about?

You said and again I quote, "A couple guys at one place averaged temps to show NZ temps increasing when they stayed the same."

Now we know it was more than a couple guys and one place. Face it you were wrong as usual. And how in the hell do you know how much data was destroyed?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #

[Danzig]

the biggest question i have at this point? if this is such an airtight case, they KNOW what they have found to be true....then why the skulduggery? why the disappearing original data, the trickery, the changing of readings, the deletions of info under FOI requests? why all the secrecy, attacks on other scientists, 'peer reviews' that they did themselves but figured no one would know because peer reviews are anonymous?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

You said and again I quote, "A couple guys at one place averaged temps to show NZ temps increasing when they stayed the same."

Now we know it was more than a couple guys and one place. Face it you were wrong as usual. And how in the hell do you know how much data was destroyed?

if you paid attention in science class, you'd know how much was destroyed too.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the biggest question i have at this point? if this is such an airtight case, they KNOW what they have found to be true....then why the skulduggery? why the disappearing original data, the trickery, the changing of readings, the deletions of info under FOI requests? why all the secrecy, attacks on other scientists, 'peer reviews' that they did themselves but figured no one would know because peer reviews are anonymous?

1) they think we're all stupid
2) if they can entrench themselves in world thought as legitimate, they win
3) Untold Trillions in their hands/at their disposal
4) Free reign (as the 800lb gorilla) in govts around the world

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

if you paid attention in science class, you'd know how much was destroyed too.

Or if I were an Obama loving, conservative Republican, who thought Carter is an authority on the middle east and knew people w/medical insurance who pay out-of-pocket instead of filling out forms.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

You said and again I quote, "A couple guys at one place averaged temps to show NZ temps increasing when they stayed the same."

Now we know it was more than a couple guys and one place. Face it you were wrong as usual. And how in the hell do you know how much data was destroyed?

Please, I beg of you, read something besides the right-wing blogosphere.

No, the guys I spoke of are in the CRU. These guys.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the biggest question i have at this point? if this is such an airtight case, they KNOW what they have found to be true....then why the skulduggery? why the disappearing original data, the trickery, the changing of readings, the deletions of info under FOI requests? why all the secrecy, attacks on other scientists, 'peer reviews' that they did themselves but figured no one would know because peer reviews are anonymous?

I don't know why I'm bothering , but try this (it's fairly accurate):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_371223.html

[SOREHOOF]

More hard hitting INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM from the HuffPooPoo. Always known for being unbiased. The NY Times Is another good one. Have you seen MSNBC lately? Govt. backed and endorsed propaganda.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

Please, I beg of you, read something besides the right-wing blogosphere.

No, the guys I spoke of are in the CRU. These guys.

Like the Huffington Post!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Please, I beg of you, read something besides the right-wing blogosphere.

No, the guys I spoke of are in the CRU. These guys.

Those poor guys were subject to a crime.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...criminal-probe

oops and now NASA may be facing some scrutiny.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-climate-data/

Are you as delusional in real life as you are here? Huffington???

As stated before if global warming was as clear-cut as some may believe there would NEVER be a need to juggle data. The fact that not only was data manipulated and destroyed, the process was discussed and now the hackers are at fault in Boxer's eye as opposed to the scientists? These hackers should be praised as whistle-blowers and receive compensation for exposing this fraud. IMO Look at the money we will save by avoiding Cap and Trade taxes. And if you want a project to do in between Jimmy Carter novelettes look up who originated the carbon credit bartering system. Hint it wasn't Al Gore though like other inventions he has taken the credit.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

I don't know why I'm bothering , but try this (it's fairly accurate):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_371223.html

As climate czar Carol Brower says, "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists [of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.] These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."

Huffingtonpost.com

Me? I’ll stick with the 31,486 American Scientists (9,029 w/PHDs) who all have disenting oppinions from Brower’s 2,500

Petitionproject.org

[Riot]

Okay, try again with that evil, liberal, biased, left-wing organization, the Associated Press.

Meanwhile, I'm going to finish formulating my pick-6 tickets. And I'm going to use that trick of Steve Crist's to manipulate my numbers

Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer – Thu Dec 3, 9:17 am ET

WASHINGTON – House Republicans pointed to controversial e-mails leaked from climate scientists and said it was evidence of corruption. Top administration scientists looking at the same thing found no such sign, saying it doesn't change the fact that the world is warming.

The e-mails from a British university's climate center were obtained by computer hackers and posted online about two weeks ago. Climate change skeptics contend the messages reveal that researchers manipulated and suppressed data and stifled dissent, and conservative bloggers are dubbing it "Climategate."

In the first Capitol Hill airing of the issue, House Republicans Wednesday read excerpts from at least eight of the e-mails, saying they showed the world needs to re-examine experts' claims that the science on warming is settled. One e-mail from 2003 was by John Holdren, then of Harvard University and now the president's science adviser.

The exploding controversy led Phil Jones to step aside as head of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, the source of the e-mail exchanges. The university is investigating the matter. Penn State University also is looking into e-mails by its own researcher, Michael Mann. House Republicans asked for a separate hearing or investigation into the issue, but were rebuffed by Democrats.

"These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit," said U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.

The science is proper and this is about a small fraction of research on the issue, said Holdren, a physicist who has studied climate change.

"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus ... that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," said another government scientist Jane Lubchenco. A marine biologist and climate researcher, she heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The e-mails don't negate or even deal with data from both NOAA and NASA, which keep independent climate records and show dramatic warming, Lubchenco told members of the House global warming committee.

The hearing was supposed to focus on the latest in global warming scientific findings. Lubchenco even attempted a high school chemistry lesson with two quick experiments at the witness table. Donning one rubber glove, she demonstrated how adding carbon dioxide to water made it more acidic and said that is what's now happening in the world's oceans. Then she put chalk in acidic water compounds and showed it dissolving a bit, to demonstrate what will happen eventually to vital sea life.

But her bubble-inducing experiments were ignored in favor of the more explosive e-mails.

Among the messages that Sensenbrenner read was one from Jones, the East Anglia scientist, in which he wrote about a "trick of adding in the real temps" in an exchange about long-term climate trends. Holdren responded that the word "trick" did not mean manipulation of data, but about a "clever way" to tackle a problem. Another Jones' e-mail read, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."

Defending the scientists, Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., said somehow the e-mails aren't stopping the Arctic from warming, the oceans from getting more acidic, and glaciers from melting. He sarcastically asked Holdren and Lubchenco if they were part of a global conspiracy that even included fictional movie villain organizations. Holdren, played along, saying he was not.

After complaining of "scientific fascism" and "scientific McCarthyism," Sensenbrenner chastised Holdren for his 2003 e-mail, when he was at Harvard, that dealt with skeptics by "calling them names."

What the e-mail, not read by Sensenbrenner, showed was that Holdren used ironic quotes around the word "Harvard" in describing two of his colleagues who are global warming skeptics. Holdren also had forwarded to other scientists an article he described as "for your entertainment" in which he was quoted as saying the two skeptics were "wrong." Holdren defended his e-mail.

Sensenbrenner attacked the work of Penn State's Mann, who is frequently brought up in the communications. Mann is the author of what is called the "hockey stick" theory, first described in the late 1990s. It suggested that the past 50 years had been the hottest in several centuries, if not 1,000 years, and that man-made global warming was to blame. That research was so controversial that the National Academy of Sciences studied the work in depth; it was used in former Vice President Al Gore's documentary on global warming.

Sensenbrenner said the 2006 National Academy study showed Mann's hockey stick was incorrect and that Mann's theory was discredited. But Holdren said the NAS study had quibbles with Mann's methods but agreed with his results.

The chairman of the Academy of Science panel, Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist Gerald North, confirmed in an interview Wednesday that Holdren was right, not Sensenbrenner.

"The conclusions that we came to were essentially the same as the hockey stick" theory that Mann proposed, North told The Associated Press. North said even if Jones, Mann and others had done no research at all, the world would still be warming and scientists would still be able to show it.

[Riot]

[quote]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Those poor guys were subject to a crime.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...criminal-probe

oops and now NASA may be facing some scrutiny.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-climate-data/

Scrutiny is excellent. For the scientists.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Like the Huffington Post!

I did say, "It's fairly accurate". It has it's little left wing rants. Feel free to completely ignore those. But the facts stand up.

[phystech]

Originally Posted by Riot

I did say, "It's fairly accurate". It has it's little left wing rants. Feel free to completely ignore those. But the facts stand up.

You always leave yourself some wiggle-room, don't ya.....

[Riot]

Originally Posted by phystech

You always leave yourself some wiggle-room, don't ya.....

No, I try not to be stupidly black and white.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

I did say, "It's fairly accurate". It has it's little left wing rants. Feel free to completely ignore those. But the facts stand up.

No, it's not.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

As climate czar Carol Brower says, "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists [of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.] These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."

Huffingtonpost.com

Me? I’ll stick with the 31,486 American Scientists (9,029 w/PHDs) who all have disenting oppinions from Brower’s 2,500

Petitionproject.org

didn't the ipcc get it's numbers from the scientists who were hacked into?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, I try not to be stupidly black and white.

lol not in this instance. anyone questioning, skeptical, needed to study in science class. those of us who raise an eyebrow are evidently too stupid to know better, and are supposed to just take the scientists on one end of the spectrum at their word, while completely ignoring anyone else...yeah, that's grey in there.