Climate Gate 2.00 : Shocking Corruption Revealed in Emails!

page: 14
179
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
You're falling for the same nonsense again!!

The orignal scandal wasn't even a scandal if you bothered to do even 10min of proper research.




posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
I see no one in this thread understands science, it's processes, and how scientists communicate with each other. There are more scientists than this that work on the issue of Global Warming, anyone with basic understanding of a bar graph can see that human factors are causing changes to our planet that are dangerous and close to chaotic.


Obviously you can be counted as one of those people who are totally ignorant on science, it's processes, and how scientists communicate with each other...

There are A LOT MORE scientists who disagree with this hoax, than those that agree. This has been proven time and again.

Even scientific groups have gone so low as to put funding first before science.

The only thing that is making the climate, and all natural processes on Earth, and EVERY OTHER PLANET AND MOON WITH AN ATMOSPHERE, is the fact that the Solar System is entering a new region of space which has been causing all these changes.



Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
The real enemies of the environment are big business and people somehow convinced that stopping the cascade of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere is un-American.


I have no love for companies and people who do no t care what happens to the environment, but the REAL enemies to the entire Earth, and to all green biomass on this planet are the people who like you want to sequester atmospheric CO2 when it is a food source needed by all plant life in this planet...

The level of atmospheric CO2 ARE NOT the reason why the Earth has been undergoing dramatic Climate Changes. Several of us have demonstrated this fact throughout the years...

The easiest way we can demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 is NOT the cause of ANY discernible warming is the fact that most of the warming has been occurring FAR AWAY from sources of anthropogenic CO2... Even NASA had to admit this fact...


Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

The oceans have been warming more than the atmosphere has, and in fact research shows that the warming is starting and most profound in the oceans and landmasses, not on the atmosphere.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
You're falling for the same nonsense again!!

The orignal scandal wasn't even a scandal if you bothered to do even 10min of proper research.


Actually, several of us did more research about this than you have done in your entire life.

If it wasn't so bad, then why the hell did Jones think about suicide?... Because it was all a lie?...


Your prophets have been caught with their pants down.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by MrXYZ
You're falling for the same nonsense again!!

The orignal scandal wasn't even a scandal if you bothered to do even 10min of proper research.


Actually, several of us did more research about this than you have done in your entire life.

If it wasn't so bad, then why the hell did Jones think about suicide?... Because it was all a lie?...


Your prophets have been caught with their pants down.


Clearly, you haven't even read the link...because if you did, you'd see proof that the original (and this) scandal aren't really scandals at all. But who cares about facts, right?


Oh, and when it comes to this, I doubt you did more research than me...my entire dissertation was about the subject


Also, your claim that more scientists disbelief climate change than believe in it is WRONG too. For someone claiming to have done more research than me, you seem fairly uneducated on the subject


Here's the latest 2011 study...



Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.


edit on 5-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The key phrase there is "of those surveyed".

That bogus consensus they keep citing was an internet survey.


More good reading,

newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com...



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The key phrase there is "of those surveyed".

That bogus consensus they keep citing was an internet survey.


More good reading,

newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com...


Those surveyed are those who know best...you know, those who spent YEARS studying geology and the climate.


Who would you ask regarding the climate? Butchers? Miners? The guy selling you cigarettes? Of course not!!! You ask those who study it, just like you ask your doctor when you get sick, and not a pro-wrestler!


As for Moerner, he's a hack who blatantly ignores data





Despite President Gayoom speaking in the past about the impending dangers to his country,[9] the Maldives, Mörner concluded that the people of the Maldives have in the past survived a higher sea level about 50–60 cm and there is evidence of a significant sea level fall in the last 30 years in that Indian Ocean area.[10][11] However, these conclusions were not supported by follow-up studies.[12]

Mörner's claim that sea levels are not rising has been criticised for ignoring correctly calibrated satellite altimeter records, all of which show that sea levels are rising.[13]


LINK

So the question is...why did he misrepresent information that goes so strongly against scientific consensus?

The answer is easy:




The Conference is sponsored by numerous global warming skeptic organizations, and in 2009 the event’s sponsors collectively received over $47 million from oil companies and right-wing foundations.

The Heartland Institute is a Chicago-based think-tank that is known for its continuous attacks on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. The Heartland Institute has received over $200,000 from Philip Morris since 1993 and over $670,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.


LINK

Mhhhh...could it be that those $47m from OIL COMPANIES helped to make that crook lie?


By the way, I invite you to post the other scientists who deny climate change. Some guy has done it in another thread a while back, and not surprisingly, every single time they were paid by the oil industry.
edit on 5-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The key phrase there is "of those surveyed".

That bogus consensus they keep citing was an internet survey.


More good reading,

newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com...


Those surveyed are those who know best...you know, those who spent YEARS studying geology and the climate.


Who would you ask regarding the climate? Butchers? Miners? The guy selling you cigarettes? Of course not!!! You ask those who study it, just like you ask your doctor when you get sick, and not a pro-wrestler!


Sorry, but it wasn't anywhere near a scientific poll.

But if you want an experts opinion, read Dr. Judith Curry, a woman Al Gore called visionary.


And if you want opinions on the weather you ask a meteorologist, if you have questions about climate in the earths past you ask a geologist. And very few geologists buy into AGW, it goes against almost everything they're observed about our past climate.

Michael Mann's tree rings have been debunked, by a High School science fair project no less.

And without them you only have the computer models, and we all can go outside to see how off they have been.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a couple of choice lines you may have missed, or if you didn't feel like reading through it all.


But it will be very difficult to make the MWP (Medieval Warming Period) go away in Greenland.

yeah, frick you MWP! you make our graphs look tame.


It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.:

let me just...*cough* adjust this more


I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.

so honest peer-reviewed science needs to "cover itself by deleting all emails"?

but still, there are people who believe the AGW crap. you're being played.


it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from the sun alone.


so you're saying the sun is largely responsible, and not man? hmmm.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


The fact that Mann isn't in jail for fraud still upsets me.

That Hockey Stick graph has been so completely debunked it has no credibility whatsoever, yet the IPCC still used it for 4 years after it was exposed.

Funny that the alarmists all say we are ignoring the experts, yet the head of the IPCC was a railroad engineer before taking the job. Oh, and he writes dirty books on the side.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


Thanks for quoting Curry...another crook who's being paid off by the oil industry. Funny enough, her "switching sides" coincides PERFECTLY with when she started getting paid by big oil


LINK

To repeat that: She came out with the article right when big oil started paying her


Trustworthy source for sure...right?


And the "hockeystick" controversy wasn't a controversy at all. There were MINOR statistical shortcomings when they did the original analysis, but it didn't really affect the results that much. LINK

So if you wanna arrest Mann, you can arrest anyone accidentally paying you $2 instead of $1.99
edit on 5-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


Thanks for quoting Curry...another crook who's being paid off by the oil industry. Funny enough, her "switching sides" coincides PERFECTLY with when she started getting paid by big oil


LINK

To repeat that: She came out with the article right when big oil started paying her


Trustworthy source for sure...right?


Uh, the money arguement was debunked pages ago, there is far more money from big oil going to promote AGW, they trade in carbon for petes sake, they have the most to gain from a carbon trading scheme.

Carbon trading was invented by Ken Lay by the way, the former head of that little company known as Enron.

Get some new material.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


Thanks for quoting Curry...another crook who's being paid off by the oil industry. Funny enough, her "switching sides" coincides PERFECTLY with when she started getting paid by big oil


LINK

To repeat that: She came out with the article right when big oil started paying her


Trustworthy source for sure...right?


Uh, the money arguement was debunked pages ago, there is far more money from big oil going to promote AGW, they trade in carbon for petes sake, they have the most to gain from a carbon trading scheme.

Carbon trading was invented by Ken Lay by the way, the former head of that little company known as Enron.

Get some new material.


Just fyi, I don't think carbon trading is the solution. It's nothing but a HEDGE by big oil and business in case people finally catch on that their acts are changing the climate and sinking entire nations like Tuvalu. So they can always "give in" in the end and say "fine, we'll agree to carbon credit trading". Why? Because if they're already controlling the market they can just diversify and get their money there!!! And it isn't fixing the core issue...a changing climate that already causes issues in many places on the planet.

Carbon trading is a HORRIBLE solution...but doesn't change the FACT that climate change is happening at levels waaaaaaay past historical statical deviations.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 



Wow, thanks for the science lesson there, "pal". I always enjoy coming to ATS to be lectured by condescending armchair climate experts with apparently zero understanding in the basics of things like thermal equilibrium, but all the confidence to try and fake their way through it anyway.


"No, I'm right, and you're wrong! You don't know what you are talking about!"

Well, at least we can agree to say the same thing, in more words or less. For the record, my .... hubris... is bigger than yours.


Before you go bragging about all the problems wise "engineers like yourself" solve for me though, maybe you want to educate engineers like yourself on what the Carbon cycle is - and how natural CO2 sources are balanced out by their sinks - while anthropogenic emissions are not.


Speaking of armchair climate scientists....

Perhaps you can explain to me what a nonlinear, chaotic system is. Perhaps it is then you could explain why you are an absolute #ing moron for insisting that there is "balance" in the natural system.

When a volcano randomly goes "kaboom" - it is not a set of carbon or ash emissions that the "balanced sinks" are ... well... balanced to deal with.

If carbon emissions and their sinks were balanced, CO2 levels, through history, would have remained consistent.

[mumbles about merely average people attempting to think and being so arrogant as to believe they are capable of it.]


Then you might want to read up on how heat trapping actually works, (maybe this 9 year old can explain it to you):

...and come to realize it has nothing to do with how much waste heat humans themselves produce (lol).


I mean by your amazing engineer-logic, a blanket doesn't work either because it produces no heat itself (minus the "entropic losses" when you shuffle it around and stuff I guess).


*sigh*... Merely average reading comprehension skills, I see. What's bad about that? The fact you seem to think you're capable of reading.

Would you like to take a shot at reading my statements again before I eviscerate your comment? I suggest doing it.

I mentioned CO2 content separate from the issue of waste heat. Technically - the heat we generate through waste and climate control -does- warm the planet. It's quite a simple concept. The heat doesn't magically disappear just because it leaked out of our homes in the winter.

CO2 emissions, on the other hand, are a completely different issue - and addressed differently for a reason.... and I believe I mentioned it in that post. All of man's CO2 contributions to the atmosphere account for an incredibly small portion of the CO2 in the air. We have been trying to catch up to Mt. St. Helens since the 1700s (and it blew up decades ago).

That amount of CO2 is not going to be able to capture enough Infra-red from the sun to contribute any kind of difference. The natural fluctuations in CO2 in the air have been far more extreme than we see today.


So figure that much out first, and then maybe humble little commoners like me can point out to you the 893287635 other "bollocks" you clearly don't even understand, but are seemingly too arrogant to bother with.


Perhaps when you can learn to read, you will realize I knew more at fifteen than you will know at fifty.

Your problem isn't that you're merely average, as I said before. You're merely average and attempt to goad your way into being a titan. Because of that overconfidence in your abilities, you fail to actually understand what argument has been levied against you. It's kind of pathetic, actually.

But I enjoy a challenge, and hereby declare that it is my mission to teach you, my pet, how to read. If you manage that, thinking may yet be on your horizon.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Enough with the sinking islands too.

They are volcanic islands, it's what they do, shrink. The ocean is not rising, they are sinking.

I trust the experts in the Netherlands, and they say sea level is steady, it even dropped a little bit last year.


I can do this all day by the way. I used to be like you, all worried about evil Global Warming and my childrens future. Then I started doing some research, which is what science is supposed to be all about. One guy writes a paper, then invites others to reach the same conclusion using the same data.

Not climate science though, they guard that data like it's pics of them masturbating or something. There is no room in science for secrecy.
edit on 5-12-2011 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

do you care to explain away those email quotes i posted? i'm sure there's a rational explanation for manipulating data in the past to make the present look hotter, and hiding data. one email i read said "make sure none of the dirty laundry gets leaked".



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Just fyi, I don't think carbon trading is the solution. It's nothing but a HEDGE by big oil and business in case people finally catch on that their acts are changing the climate and sinking entire nations like Tuvalu. So they can always "give in" in the end and say "fine, we'll agree to carbon credit trading".


Which is exactly why they pay the vast majority of the lobbyists creating the political pressure for the carbon trading.

What a perfectly logical conclusion.


Why? Because if they're already controlling the market they can just diversify and get their money there!!!


You mean like how they want to tax the piss out of carbon emissions and then push for funding and legislation to back premature alternative energy sources that have most of their shares owned by oil companies and/or investors?


And it isn't fixing the core issue...a changing climate that already causes issues in many places on the planet.


It does?

It's been a long while since I've seen a new documentary about the melting glaciers. Know why that is? A lot of them stopped melting and the crews packed up to find islands that were flooding themselves with improper irrigation for farming or twelve feet of snow in New York.


Carbon trading is a HORRIBLE solution...but doesn't change the FACT that climate change is happening at levels waaaaaaay past historical statical deviations.


No, it's really not. This is an artifact of statistics and the methods used. We can get temperature and weather data by the hour; seconds, if we want to. The further back in time we go, the fewer data points we get. Prior to 1930, you'd be lucky to have morning/noon/evening temperature and weather data with any kind of consistency in any region. Go back to 1830, and you're lucky to have daily reports with any kind of consistency. Go back 1,000 years, and geology can only give you an -estimate- of the temperature average for an entire decade.

This is partly why there is the common misconception that everything in nature happens "slow" and "gently." It doesn't. Long before I was even born - there was evidence and data supporting a "fast freeze" that started the most recent ice-age. Average global temperatures fell horrendously in less than a decade.

Data since then has supported rapid periods of change being more the statistical norm rather than the anomaly. This is, actually, consistent with the behavior of chaotic systems - which tend to have a few states of relative stability separated by rapid and chaotic transitional states that no chaotic system remains in for long.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
thought I would add this The Garrison Institute’s Climate, Mind and Behavior (CMB) Program works to integrate emerging research findings about what drives human behavior into new thinking on climate solutions. It crystallizes and further develops the emerging understanding of human behavior and human nature generated by behavioral and social sciences, integrating them with insights from evolutionary theory and psychology, and applies this evolving body of thought specifically to climate change policy and related ecological issues, proposing new approaches, tools and solutions. www.garrisoninstitute.org...
this next link are the people behind or in the front of the group
www.garrisoninstitute.org...



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 



Why do you deniers keep pretending you're "winning"??


The same reason you seem to think you've won, apparently.


Every single one of your points is constantly debunked, yet you keep bringing your prized turds back into debates.


Really?

Hang on.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...


Differences in average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures between proximate stations are as large as 1.6 and 3.8 °C, respectively. In addition, it is found that the difference in average extreme monthly minimum temperatures can be as high as 3.6 °C between nearby stations, largely owing to the differences in instrument exposures. Likewise, the difference in monthly extreme maximum temperatures between neighboring stations are as large as 2.4 °C. This investigation finds similar differences in the diurnal temperature range (DTR).


Basically - the temperature data is unreliable because of stupid # like this:

gallery.surfacestations.org...

Since I can't seem to upload files for whatever reason, that will have to suffice.

Basically - that little round doohickey in the upper center of the picture is the temperature sensor for one of the stations used to calculate the effects of climate change.

Notice, it is conveniently located above the roof of a building, situated over many electrical meters, and has several heat exchangers within ten meters (not to mention all of the RF sources and the roof-top heat vent).

You're going to tell me that scientists have figured out how to account for the manner in which the data is skewed by that? No - they haven't - the ones who developed that formula have, likely, never laid eyes on that station (or many of the others highlighted by surfacestations.org as being... pathetically sub-standard).

Here's another example:

www.norcalblogs.com...

This is classic:

www.norcalblogs.com...

Hmm... wonder why that station is saying it's hot as balls?

This one is just #ing epic:

www.surfacestations.org...

- Hmm...Where did they get the MiG-15?


You are loathsome creatures, believing what you want to believe rather than what is true.


Just doing what we do when we do what we do.


*facepalm*

CASE IN POINT. ALL THAT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 



CASE IN POINT. ALL THAT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED.




Forgive me for not taking you at your word.

How, exactly, can one debunk the fact that the data being used to generate temperature data is sourced from stations that are placed within feet of heat exchangers, above roof-tops, and walled in by concrete structures?

Would you care to explain this to me?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Clearly, you haven't even read the link...because if you did, you'd see proof that the original (and this) scandal aren't really scandals at all. But who cares about facts, right?


Obviously you don't care about facts...



We have done entire threads about this and posted hundreds of peer reviewed reserch paper, plust what the REAL scientists have to say.

We also prooved that the "mayority" of the IPCC so called "expert scientists were nothing but policymakers, and people who had NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER ON CLIMATE CHANGE... Their governments just decided to add them as experts to further their agendas...

I have also posted in the past how scientific groups are NOT ASKING THEIR SCIENTISTS MEMBERS FOR OPINIONS ON AGW/GLOBAL WARMING, but rather the directors of each group decided to claim "EVERYONE AGREES"...

I have posted the statements made even by the REAL IPCC scientists and how their opinion is not heard and the IPCC is nothing more than a propaganda tool...

We even showed PROOF that the IPCC policymakers LIED several times such as the claim the Himalayans would melt by 2035, when that was not true and the scientists who posted this lie came forth to say they put that lie, among others, to FORCE governments into agreeing with them and adopting the kyoto protocol...

Yes, we have done years of research and posted the truth.

You claim the Climategate scandal was nothing but that is not what scientists are saying...



Originally posted by MrXYZ
Oh, and when it comes to this, I doubt you did more research than me...my entire dissertation was about the subject


SO WHAT?... Mann's dissertation was the original HOCKEY STICK GRAPH which has been shown to be nothing but a LIE...

BTW, I want to see your dissertation...

And about that poll...who did that poll, how many scientists they asked,and how were they asked... Polls can be twisted to say whatever those who made the poll want it to say...

FACTS, such as nature showing what is really happening are more important than LIES and made up propaganda...





top topics
 
179
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join