stephenhawkings Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 (edited) Yeah your right, how dare I exagerate anything..even though "the oceans will rise 20ft" and "we will kill earth in this century if we don't stop". Yeah, how could I exagerate, how dare I. Keep drinking the fool aid. I started to explain something, but I erased it. Obviously nothing anybody says will change your mind or even put the seed of doubt in there. You don't want the truth you want to be on the right side of an argument. If it turns out your on the wrong side, you won't take a second look or even see any other side. Just argue and fight to the end and if your wrong so what you went down fighting. We could of had this argument over global cooling in the 70's. Your still wrong but only time will prove it. At which time you can deny you ever agreed with MMGW. Same as NOBODY will admit they agreed about global cooling in the 70's. As far as the y2k Ed? I was intricately involved in military run ups to y2k and it was bullshit. There was "well, it could do something...but I seriously doubt it but we'll spend two months of 7 days a week checks to ensure nothing can go wrong". Even though in late Oct/early Nov it was proven several times to the higher ups that it was bullshit. It was more important to (1) cover your ass and (2) placate the government and ultimately keep the public calm. I don't think I am wrong about the over reaction, but you didn't finish your explanation of what? Edited November 26, 2009 by stephenhawkings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Yeah your right, how dare I exagerate anything..even though "the oceans will rise 20ft" and "we will kill earth in this century if we don't stop". Better take them ice cubes out the wifes Coca Cola glass because when they melt the house will get flooded out (It stays the same level try it). If we get Global Warming l won't need to put my heating on in the Winter, so l will be doing my bit to cut down on C02 without trying to hard. Mediterranean Climate rather than damp wet cold British winters yes please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Better take them ice cubes out the wifes Coca Cola glass because when they melt the house will get flooded out (It stays the same level try it). If we get Global Warming l won't need to put my heating on in the Winter, so l will be doing my bit to cut down on C02 without trying to hard. Mediterranean Climate rather than damp wet cold British winters yes please. It's the ice cubes that slip off the side of the glass (e.g. Greenland or Antarctica) and into the drink that are the problem. The level rises. Try it. At any rate, NPR ran a spot on this yesterday, so it is getting some traction. They referred to the suppression of opposing views as "playing hardball", and aired criticism of the practice for undermining the principles of scientific inquiry. If I'm wrong about the Mt. Rainier ice caves disappearing, if I'm wrong that the snow banks along Snoqualmie Pass have gone from 10' high every winter to 3' typically, then I will be happy. Means I can drive that T-Bird boat of mine, and take all the International flights I want guilt-free (well, except for all the bucks flowing to the Saudis). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 It's the ice cubes that slip off the side of the glass (e.g. Greenland or Antarctica) and into the drink that are the problem. The level rises. Try it. You talking about ice cubes in the fridge on land, last l heard the ice is not defrosting down the side it is freezing over and ice caps are expanding not contracting like it always has done in weather cycles in Antarctic. LINK Maybe be l will get back $1,000s in a tax rebate that l have paid APD Global Warming taxes if the ice caps are expanding rather than watch the Global Warming tax revenue disappear propping up a failed UK Government their gold plates pensions & bank bailouts with the revenue spent everything except combating global warming. Some might say its a scam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 It's the ice cubes that slip off the side of the glass (e.g. Greenland or Antarctica) and into the drink that are the problem. The level rises. Try it. In Viking days, the glaciers in Greenland were even more recessed than now and the Antarctic ice caps haven't changed that much, all the scientific evidence is based around changes in floating sea ice. Check it out.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savetheplanet Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 A person will only tend to make fun of the opposing view, when he doesn't have a cogent argument. You're better than that, aren't you? You've missed the point. The "peers" in question, are at the center of this (link to CRU-related story). In every case, when the raw data (link to a non-CRU related story) or the source code (link relating to CRU) have been examined by outsiders, flaws have been observed, and are not readily explained, OR multiple (and divergent) explanations are given. When the the researchers themselves can't be consistent in their explanation, then I'd conclude something is rotten. For me the real crime here is suppression of contradictory data and/or the opposing view; as it was in the case of the EPA Report on greenhouse gas effects (link to the original, suppressed document), and others. Read the original article I referenced for additional examples; and there ARE others. CAN YOU PROVIDE THE REST OF US A SINGLE, RATIONAL EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE IS VALID SCIENCE, AND IN NO WAY CALLS INTO QUESTION THE INTEGRITY OF THE MMGW RESEARCHERS? Yes, I'm yelling because I want everyone to see the question, and also see that no reasonable answer is ever given throughout the rest of this thread. Why resort to sarcasm? Don't you have anything more in your intellectual arsenal? Ranger, thanks for keepiong the debate sane, I did get a bit unreasonable in my last post. I am very busy these days, so this will be short and I will bew back to debate this further. I agree with Methos that one research center that fudged the numbers, or suppressed data or opinions does not mean that the whole ACC thing is a hoax. As I have said before I used to cringe when I would hear left wingers accuse Dick Cheney of going to war solely for $$. Or when they would say that Bush was in the skull and crossbones club and blh blh blh. I totaly disagreed with Cheney and Bush but always believed that they were doing what they thought was right! It's the same with ACC, we really do believe in ACC and all the conspiracy theories about how Gore and the rest of us just want to make $$ or that we are purposely creating a hoax for whatever reason is just plain nonsense. So I was a bit upset that this one research center being caught suppressing opinion or whatever it is that they did and equating that with all the other research done by scientists well, it is hard to even want to take my valuble time to address it. Riddle me this, how purposely melting those glaciers to keep this hoax going? Seems to be a lot of animosity out there. I prefer to think that the level of animosity is a sign that the debate really is fundamentally over. This is the death throes of an outdated perspective from people who are incredibly uncomfortable with change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 (edited) Seems to be a lot of animosity out there. I prefer to think that the level of animosity is a sign that the debate really is fundamentally over. This is the death throes of an outdated perspective from people who are incredibly uncomfortable with change. Change = the person on the end of the line paying for it. Not governments, not business but you and I. I think we, the little people who will be footing this bill are entitled to question the methodology that has lead all and sundry to the conclusion that weather and climate are affected to the degree stated. My concern is that the role of CO2 and in particular, impact of cars on GW has been overstated. Should we pay a fortune to reduce CO2 on vehicles when they at best contribute 17% of all CO2? Edited November 27, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadtrip Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Here's an eleven-minute radio interview with climate scientist Patrick J. Michaels discussing the Climategate scandal. It's well worth the listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted November 28, 2009 Author Share Posted November 28, 2009 (edited) Ranger, thanks for keepiong the debate sane, I did get a bit unreasonable in my last post. I am very busy these days, so this will be short and I will bew back to debate this further. I agree with Methos that one research center that fudged the numbers, or suppressed data or opinions does not mean that the whole ACC thing is a hoax. It is not my wish to impugn all climate scientists' work as part of some widespread conspiracy to commit fraud on the entire Earth. I'm sure that many who believe in MMGW do so sincerely. I get my ass chapped however, when so many (especially those who have a financial stake in the matter) declare the science as "settled". It is FAR from settled. The reason this particular scandal has such an impact is it reflects not only the (apparent) actions of the primary authors of the IPCC reports on climate change, but also their attitudes; arrogance, disdain (toward criticism), culpability/remorse (they themselves questioned their actions in some of those emails), and duplicity (in their treatment of data). As I have said before I used to cringe when I would hear left wingers accuse Dick Cheney of going to war solely for $$. Or when they would say that Bush was in the skull and crossbones club and blh blh blh. I totaly disagreed with Cheney and Bush but always believed that they were doing what they thought was right! There are many who do what they believe is right, for the wrong reasons. The actions of these scientists reflect their own integrity (or lack thereof), and is not justified by any actions of anyone. It's the same with ACC, we really do believe in ACC and all the conspiracy theories about how Gore and the rest of us just want to make $$ or that we are purposely creating a hoax for whatever reason is just plain nonsense. So I was a bit upset that this one research center being caught suppressing opinion or whatever it is that they did and equating that with all the other research done by scientists well, it is hard to even want to take my valuble time to address it. Whatever your beliefs regarding MMGW are, it should not blind you to the possiblity that you are wrong. The same applies in reverse. Riddle me this, how purposely melting those glaciers to keep this hoax going? The same people that named it Greenland instead of Whiteland? Glaciers melt. It's part of a natural process. It's happened before, and it will happen again. Seems to be a lot of animosity out there. I prefer to think that the level of animosity is a sign that the debate really is fundamentally over. This is the death throes of an outdated perspective from people who are incredibly uncomfortable with change. If the debate were really over, you would have agreement, not argument. We agree that climate changes. We DON'T agree that man is the primary influence. As this story spreads, as it ultimately will, that will become more apparent as more data becomes available. Honestly I don't know that we can ever really know, given that we're dealing with an open system, not readily given to experiment. But, that doesn't mean that we can't better understand and react. Edited November 28, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 The same people that named it Greenland instead of Whiteland? Glaciers melt. It's part of a natural process. It's happened before, and it will happen again. Maybe mother nature is going to move the ice caps and glaciers somewhere else? After all the world map now looks different than it used to, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted November 28, 2009 Author Share Posted November 28, 2009 (edited) Maybe mother nature is going to move the ice caps and glaciers somewhere else? After all the world map now looks different than it used to, right? If I had to say, I'd bet it's something we haven't thought of yet. Could the recent tsunami phenomena have had an impact on ocean currents, pushing warmer water closer to the poles? Is it possible that underwater volcanic activity has played a role? Given that the global temperature has fallen in the last 10+ years, could the heat that was formerly in the atmosphere have been absorbed by those glaciers, and contributed to their melting? There are so many variables; most (damn near all?) are not related to man. I know I don't sweat it, unless someone expects me to pay for some outlandish scheme to (attempt to) control it. Edited November 28, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 IMHO, the oceans have faced 3 big biological challenges: over-fishing, destruction of the sea-bed nursery by dragging, and the pollution of plankton-size plastic particles, that look like they could be food to everything that eats plankton. The long term effects of these cannot be good. I never, ever thought I would see Atlantic cod become an endangered species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 :happy feet: :happy feet: :happy feet: http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12520 Gore Flees in Panic from Chicago Book Signing November 25, 2009 (LPAC)—Not since Henry Kissinger fled a team of LaRouche organizers, in the back of a delivery truck in New York City's Central Park in the early 1980s, has an obese fascist moved so fast to escape an angry crowd, as Al Gore did today in Chicago. Appearing at a bookstore in the downtown Loop, Gore was confronted by a team of demonstrators from a grass roots group called "We Are Change," as he was signing his latest fascist screed on the global warming swindle. Gore bolted from the bookstore, raced down an alley, jumped into a waiting car, and tried to speed off, with protesters chasing after him and banging on the car. Midwest LYM organizers, who were also on the scene to confront the global warming swindler, provided an eyewitness account of Fat Albert's flight of fear. Make no mistake about it. This little encounter is typical of the kinds of things going on all over the country, as the fascists who brought you the near-destruction of the United States and an onrushing global Dark Age, are no longer walking the streets, smug in the belief that they are literally getting away with murder. The mass strike dynamic is playing out in thousands of ways, every day, and the recent revelations about the "smoking gun" emails from the East Anglia University global warming propaganda center, have made Al Gore's life a little more miserable. As Percy Shelley wrote in "The Mask of Anarchy," "We are many, they are few." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 This link is to a Finnish documentary that is very comprehensive in its explanation of exactly how the wheels are coming of the global warming band wagon. If you have ever wasted the time to watch Al Gore, you really owe it to your self to spend the thirty minutes it will take to watch this. It is subtitled in English. As it turns out, a Canadian mathematician is a big contributor in cutting through the BS. Atta' boy Canada! Climate Catastrophe Canceled Sure is interesting how those scientists call for transparency except for when it does not benefit them ... ! Quite an eye opening video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadtrip Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Maybe mother nature is going to move the ice caps and glaciers somewhere else? After all the world map now looks different than it used to, right? Right. Here's an excerpt from Michael Crichton's speech entitled "The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming" addressed to the National Press Club on January 25, 2005, on this very subject: When I was a student in the 1950s, like many kids I noticed that Africa seemed to fit nicely into South America. Were they once connected? I asked my teacher, who said that that this apparent fit was just an accident, and the continents did not move. I had trouble with that, unaware that people had been having trouble with it ever since Francis Bacon noticed the same thing back in 1620. A German named Wegener had made a more modern case for it in 1912. But still, my teacher said no. By the time I was in college ten years later, it was recognized that continents did indeed move, and had done so for most of Earth's history. Continental drift and plate tectonics were born. The teacher was wrong. Most of Crichton's speech is based on the fact that Anthropogenic Global Warming or human-caused climate change, or whatever the current politically convenient nomenclature is, is still only a theory, and at this stage of the theory's development, there are conflicting data that either support or refute the theory. And there simply are not enough data to support making policies that could possibly represent a gross misallocation of capital -- especially at a time when that capital should be allocated otherwise. To wit: [W]e can't predict the future, but we can know the present. In the time we have been talking, 2,000 people have died in the third world. A child is orphaned by AIDS every 7 seconds. Fifty people die of waterborne disease every minute. This does not have to happen. We allow it. What is wrong with us that we ignore this human misery and focus on events a hundred years from now? What must we do to awaken this phenomenally rich, spoiled and self-centered society to the issues of the wider world? The global crisis is not 100 years from now — it is right now. We should be addressing it. But we are not. Instead, we cling to the reactionary and antihuman doctrines of outdated environmentalism and turn our backs to the cries of the dying and the starving and the diseased of our shared world. And if we are going to remain too self-involved to care about the third world, can we at least care about our own? We live in a country where 40 percent of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Where schoolchildren pass through metal detectors on the way to class. Where one child in four says they have seen a murdered person. Where millions of our fellow citizens have no health care, no decent education, no prospects for the future. If we really have trillions of dollars to spend, let us spend it on our fellow human beings. And let us spend it now. And not on our impossible fantasies of what may happen one hundred years from now. My contention has always been: If the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is true, then there is no amount of money we can throw at the problem to solve it -- not in the present day. But the future holds promise, as Crichton points out: Here is Teddy Roosevelt, a major environmental figure from 1900. These are some of the words that he does not know the meaning of: airport antibiotic antibody antenna computer continental drift tectonic plates zipper nylon radio television robot video virus gene proton neutron atomic structure quark atomic bomb nuclear energy ecosystem jumpsuits fingerprints step aerobics 12-step jet stream shell shock shock wave radio wave microwave tidal wave tsunami IUD DVD MP3 MRI HIV SUV VHS VAT whiplash wind tunnel carpal tunnel fiber optics direct dialing dish antennas gorilla corneal transplant liver transplant heart transplant liposuction transduction maser taser laser acrylic penicillin Internet interferon nylon rayon leisure suit leotard lap dancing laparoscopy arthroscopy gene therapy bipolar moonwalk spot welding heat-seeking Prozac sunscreen urban legends rollover minutes Given all those changes, is there anything Teddy could have done in 1900 to help us? And aren't we in his position right now, with regard to 2100? This raises the question as to why we must allocate what will be trillions of dollars today for a problem that, if the theories prove to be true, won't manifest themselves for another 100 years -- while other problems are manifest today -- and, if history is a guide, technological breakthroughs will continue to address future problems, to the extent that we can only dream. (Actually, Teddy Roosevelt did a great thing back then that helps us today, which was to resume construction of the Panama Canal, which the French started, but just didn't seem to have the huevos to complete. The reduced cost of global commerce as a result of the completion of the Panama Canal helps us all as consumers. Hat tip to the French for their original vision.) You can read the entire content of Michael Crichton's full speech, replete with visuals, here. And the curious might be interested to read Michael Crichton's addendum to his 2005 novel State of Fear, in which he draws analogies from the marriage of science and politics of the global-warming movement to the Eugenics movement in the early 20th century: Why Politicized Science is Dangerous. The less than curious are likely to reply: "Michael Crichton, LOL! He's a science fiction writer, LOL!" Which is exactly what he would have expected from his detractors (in spite of the fact that Michael Crichton graduated from Harvard Medical School with an M.D.). I thought it was interesting that Crichton's 2005 novel State of Fear was not made into a movie. It was as much a page-turner as any of his previous novels, and by that point in his career, Michael Crichton was a franchise writer, meaning that anything he published was bound to get serious attention from the Hollywood community. (No need to run through all the titles of the movies and all the literary contributions he gave the pop culture -- they are numerous.) As for State of Fear, in which Crichton highlights the politicizing of science in the Anthropogenic Global Warming debates, he points out that there are more lawyers involved in the environmental movement than there are scientists, and provides graphs and footnotes to support each of his protagonist's assertions (not something you see in your average science-fiction novel). I guess Stephen Spielberg and the rest of the Hollywood Left just didn't want to go there with this one... It's too bad, because it would have made a good movie. Someday, it will make a good movie... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savetheplanet Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 :happy feet: :happy feet: :happy feet: http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12520 Really? really? How can you even look at yourself in the mirror posting that crap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savetheplanet Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 (edited) Right. Here's an excerpt from Michael Crichton's speech entitled "The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming" addressed to the National Press Club on January 25, 2005, on this very subject: Most of Crichton's speech is based on the fact that Anthropogenic Global Warming or human-caused climate change, or whatever the current politically convenient nomenclature is, is still only a theory, and at this stage of the theory's development, there are conflicting data that either support or refute the theory. And there simply are not enough data to support making policies that could possibly represent a gross misallocation of capital -- especially at a time when that capital should be allocated otherwise. To wit: My contention has always been: If the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is true, then there is no amount of money we can throw at the problem to solve it -- not in the present day. But the future holds promise, as Crichton points out: This raises the question as to why we must allocate what will be trillions of dollars today for a problem that, if the theories prove to be true, won't manifest themselves for another 100 years -- while other problems are manifest today -- and, if history is a guide, technological breakthroughs will continue to address future problems, to the extent that we can only dream. (Actually, Teddy Roosevelt did a great thing back then that helps us today, which was to resume construction of the Panama Canal, which the French started, but just didn't seem to have the huevos to complete. The reduced cost of global commerce as a result of the completion of the Panama Canal helps us all as consumers. Hat tip to the French for their original vision.) You can read the entire content of Michael Crichton's full speech, replete with visuals, here. And the curious might be interested to read Michael Crichton's addendum to his 2005 novel State of Fear, in which he draws analogies from the marriage of science and politics of the global-warming movement to the Eugenics movement in the early 20th century: Why Politicized Science is Dangerous. The less than curious are likely to reply: "Michael Crichton, LOL! He's a science fiction writer, LOL!" Which is exactly what he would have expected from his detractors (in spite of the fact that Michael Crichton graduated from Harvard Medical School with an M.D.). I thought it was interesting that Crichton's 2005 novel State of Fear was not made into a movie. It was as much a page-turner as any of his previous novels, and by that point in his career, Michael Crichton was a franchise writer, meaning that anything he published was bound to get serious attention from the Hollywood community. (No need to run through all the titles of the movies and all the literary contributions he gave the pop culture -- they are numerous.) As for State of Fear, in which Crichton highlights the politicizing of science in the Anthropogenic Global Warming debates, he points out that there are more lawyers involved in the environmental movement than there are scientists, and provides graphs and footnotes to support each of his protagonist's assertions (not something you see in your average science-fiction novel). I guess Stephen Spielberg and the rest of the Hollywood Left just didn't want to go there with this one... It's too bad, because it would have made a good movie. Someday, it will make a good movie... Michael Crichton, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! How many peer reviewed articles on ACC by Mr. Crichton can you provide? Edited November 28, 2009 by Savetheplanet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadtrip Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Michael Crichton, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! How many peer reviewed articles on ACC by Mr. Crichton can you provide? As we now know, the designation of "peer reviewed" seems to only include peers whose views coincide with those of the authors of bogus greenhouse gas papers. "hahaha..." is not only a weak rebuttal of what Dr. Crichton had to say -- which, evidently, you did not read -- but actually makes his point about how the environmental left will shout down and dismiss any opposing viewpoints without any consideration whatsoever. Thank you for illustrating how stupid you people truly are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted November 28, 2009 Author Share Posted November 28, 2009 (edited) Michael Crichton, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! How many peer reviewed articles on ACC by Mr. Crichton can you provide? STP, here is a quotation from one of those emails from Phil Jones, head of the CRU: The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! The "MM" he is referring to here is Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, who established that the Global Warming Hockey Stick had no statistical basis, and was meaningless. Care to provide an interpretation of P. Jones' statements? So as to be fair, and provide you with as much latitude as possible, here is a link to the entire email as written. Edited November 28, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 (edited) As we now know, the designation of "peer reviewed" seems to only include peers whose views coincide with those of the authors of bogus greenhouse gas papers. "hahaha..." is not only a weak rebuttal of what Dr. Crichton had to say -- which, evidently, you did not read -- but actually makes his point about how the environmental left will shout down and dismiss any opposing viewpoints without any consideration whatsoever. Thank you for illustrating how stupid you people truly are. I don't think Dr. Crichton needs to have any papers peer-reviewed since, oh dear, oh my, he is not a climatologist involved in the study. If the scientists were transparent about their studies in the first place and didn't require us to use a super secret decoder ring, maybe we wouldn't have this debate. Then again, that would mean that we wouldn't have this theory at all since it's looking more and more like a big fat hoax each day. All Crichton is, effectively, is a whistle-blower ... And now we have the super secret decoder ring thanks to this hacker ... so we'll solve this. BTW: Have the mainstream media reported on this AT ALL? This is HUGE. Can you say .... selective reporting: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=n...&id=7137056 ABC makes no mention of anybody except the supporters?! Edited November 28, 2009 by SVT_MAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goinbroke2 Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 See the only response below the story? A single post who says "what a scam" ! LOL Too funny! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 Why could this be? Climate change data dumped SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) Why could this be? Climate change data dumped Could this email possibly have anything to do with it? At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc ! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it........... That would be Phil Jones, Head of the CRU, addressing Michael Mann (of Global Warming Hockey Stick fame). Anyone care to provide a plausible explanation? Edited November 29, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goinbroke2 Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Allow me.... bububububububububut ummm,ahh, well see....ahh, ummm ok listen...ahh, that is...ah...ummm, so if I understand your question correctly, ahhh..you want...ahhh...well, let me see...ummm....ahhh <whispering.."nancy, got that file?"> Can you give me a minute to refute your statement please...ahhh, what? Oh yes, well umm..so do you think polar bears aren't endangered? so do you think polar bears aren't endangered? so do you think polar bears aren't endangered? so do you think polar bears aren't endangered? Well many scientist who do this for a living will testify that you are wrong mister, the polar bears are dying..and..<there's more now then ever?? can they prove it?> So as I was saying we must stop MMGW now before the earth explodes in flames by the end of the year. so do you think polar bears aren't endangered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadtrip Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Could this email possibly have anything to do with it? That would be Phil Jones, Head of the CRU, addressing Michael Mann (of Global Warming Hockey Stick fame). Anyone care to provide a plausible explanation? The only plausible explanation consists of three words: conspiracy to defraud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.