Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

We return to our normal programming:

www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/science/earth/09climate.html

Yep

just look at who they credit for informational sources

Back to YOUR normal programing

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

We return to our normal programming:

www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/science/earth/09climate.html

Yep

just look at who they credit for informational sources

Back to YOUR normal programing

National Climatic Data Center and NASA. And you choose to believe Inhofe

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We return to our normal programming:

www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/science/earth/09climate.html

Yep

just look at who they credit for informational sources

Back to YOUR normal programing

National Climatic Data Center and NASA. And you choose to believe Inhofe

One click deeper and you find the sources my friend
Damn you make this easy

Quote

Information sources

This press release was issued in collaboration with the Hadley Centre of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office; the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom; the National Climatic Data Center, National Environmental Satellite and Data Information Service, and the National Weather Service under NOAA; and the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the United States. Other contributors are the NMHSs of Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, India, Japan, Morocco, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey and Uruguay. The African Centre of Meteorological Applications for Development (ACMAD, Niamey), the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), the Centro Internacional para la Investigación del Fenómeno de El Niño (CIIFEN, Guayaquil, Ecuador), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Climate Prediction and Applications Centre (ICPAC, Nairobi, Kenya), the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Drought Monitoring Centre (SADC DMC, Gabarone, Botswana) and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) also contributed.

Global Surface Temperature Trend : Result from three Global datasets: NOAA (NCDC Dataset) , NASA (GISS dataset) and combined Hadley Center and Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UK) (HadCRUT3 dataset)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

So which of the following do you find unreliable?

the National Climatic Data Center, National Environmental Satellite and Data Information Service, and the National Weather Service under NOAA; and the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the United States. Other contributors are the NMHSs of Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, India, Japan, Morocco, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey and Uruguay. The African Centre of Meteorological Applications for Development (ACMAD, Niamey), the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), the Centro Internacional para la Investigación del Fenómeno de El Niño (CIIFEN, Guayaquil, Ecuador), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Climate Prediction and Applications Centre (ICPAC, Nairobi, Kenya), the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Drought Monitoring Centre (SADC DMC, Gabarone, Botswana) and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

So which of the following do you find unreliable?

the National Climatic Data Center, National Environmental Satellite and Data Information Service, and the National Weather Service under NOAA; and the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the United States. Other contributors are the NMHSs of Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, India, Japan, Morocco, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey and Uruguay. The African Centre of Meteorological Applications for Development (ACMAD, Niamey), the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), the Centro Internacional para la Investigación del Fenómeno de El Niño (CIIFEN, Guayaquil, Ecuador), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Climate Prediction and Applications Centre (ICPAC, Nairobi, Kenya), the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Drought Monitoring Centre (SADC DMC, Gabarone, Botswana) and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP)

Silly you! ALL of them are in on the great conspiracy. The fact that they all agree about AGW proves it Case closed.

[rushmc 23]

Those who are now known to be frauds

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So which of the following do you find unreliable?

How many of them use data from CRU or GISS? CRU and their data is under a cloud, and rightly so. GISS has had to be adjusted due to work by those 'deniers' and a database of the of the monitoring stations show that roughly 70% of the ones in North America *ALONE* have measurement errors over 1 degree C.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,116]

>RU and their data is under a cloud, and rightly so. GISS has had to be adjusted. . . .

Yep. It's just like NIST! All their conclusions are now under a cloud due to their admissions of errors. They've revised their data several times and admitted to coverups. When will people WAKE UP and realize that the truthers have just as much validity as the deniers?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>RU and their data is under a cloud, and rightly so. GISS has had to be adjusted. . . .

Yep. It's just like NIST! All their conclusions are now under a cloud due to their admissions of errors. They've revised their data several times and admitted to coverups. When will people WAKE UP and realize that the truthers have just as much validity as the deniers?

Hang on - I'll cue up "Tiny Dancer" for you while you spin.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,116]

>Silly you! ALL of them are in on the great conspiracy.

And now the EPA is in on it too!

=================
EPA Declares Greenhouse Gases a Danger

By IAN TALLEY

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as expected, on Monday declared greenhouse gases a danger to public health, a decision that could soon lead to new emissions regulations for businesses across the economy.

The "endangerment finding" announced by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is necessary to move ahead on new emissions standards for cars due out in March 2010. Made under the Clean Air Act, it also opens up large emitters such as power plants, oil refineries, chemical plants and metal smelters to regulations that limit their output of carbon dioxide and other gases.

"These long overdue findings cement 2009's place in history as the year when the U.S. government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform," Ms. Jackson said.

. . . . .

Some lawmakers and groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers warned the decision could bring the entire economy to a halt, not only regulating large emitters within months, but also opening other mobile sources and smaller emitters to regulation.

"With double-digit unemployment and over 3.5 million jobs already lost this year, the administration inexplicably continues to push for a job-killing national energy tax—either through legislation or regulation," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said.
==============

Wow! Job-killing! Bringing the economy to a halt! Surely the stock market went into a tailspin when the halting of the US economy was announced by the EPA! No one is safe!

Oh . . . wait . . .
==============
Solar Energy Shares Jump On Upgrades, EPA Greenhouse Gas Ruling

DECEMBER 7, 2009, 3:24 P.M. ET

By Shara Tibken
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Shares of solar energy stocks climbed Monday as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared greenhouse gases a danger to public health and as an analyst turned bullish on several solar names, saying he expects strong demand to continue into the first half of 2010.

The so-called "endangerment finding" announced by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is necessary for the administration to move ahead with new light-duty vehicle emission standards and is the precursor to wide-ranging regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA said Monday that large emitters of greenhouse gases would come under new regulations next spring to limit such emissions.

The new regulations will require firms that are building or modifying power plants, refineries and other industrial emitters to install the "best available" technology. The EPA will soon begin determining what technology will be required.

. . .

In recent trading, JA Solar jumped 11% to $4.87, with shares having gained 12% year to date. SunPower climbed 9% to $24.31, and Suntech increased 8.5% to $16.69. SunPower shares have dropped 34% since the beginning of the year, while Suntech has gained 43%.

Other solar stocks trading higher included ReneSola Ltd. (SOL), which is up 6.6% at $4.37, and Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd. (YGE), with a 3.9% gain to $15.91. First Solar Inc. (FSLR) rose 3.5% to $134.18, and Trina Solar Ltd. (TSL) advanced 2.7% to $48.74.

Shah said Germany, Italy, the U.S., China and Canada could drive positive sector fundamentals, leading to better-than-expected pricing and volumes. He projected demand of 9.3 gigawatts in 2010 versus prior expectations for 7.3 GW.

Gradual improvement in the financing environment, improvement in permitting constraints and the positive impact of stimulus on U.S. and China demand could provide additional upside to second-half 2010 fundamentals, driving 10.5 GW demand in a bull-case scenario, Shah added.
====================
Energy stocks rise as investors mull EPA endangerment finding

DEBORAH JIAN LEE
AP Energy Writer

December 7, 2009 | 2:28 p.m.

NEW YORK (AP) — Energy stocks were most higher Monday, as investors weighed the potential burden of an Environmental Protection Agency finding that declares greenhouse gases a hazard to human health and advances the push for regulation.

The endangerment finding threatens the energy industry's big polluters, such as refiners and coal-based utilities, while power companies with a greener portfolio and solar parts and panel makers could gain from stricter regulation, analysts said.

Shares of utilities edged up across the board. Companies that have made considerable shifts toward energy efficient practices saw larger gains following the EPA's news. Shares of Exelon Corp. rose 86 cents to $50.16.

Meanwhile, stocks of power companies heavily reliant on coal were mostly flat. Jefferies & Co. analyst Paul Fremont said EPA regulations remain undefined and too far into the future to drive significant trading Monday. Shares of Duke Energy rose 24 cents to $17.38.
====================

Looks like rumors of its demise have been exaggerated.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Those who are now known to be frauds

So name them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Silly you! ALL of them are in on the great conspiracy.

And now the EPA is in on it too!

=================
EPA Declares Greenhouse Gases a Danger .

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

EPA Declares Greenhouse Gases a Danger...

Solar Energy Shares Jump On Upgrades, EPA Greenhouse Gas Ruling...

Energy stocks rise as investors mull EPA endangerment finding...

So, when I say that political processes pick winners and losers I suppose I am correct. The EPA is always interested in doing the right thing. I'd refer you to Ann Gorsuch, but she died a few years ago.

Quote

Wow! Job-killing! Bringing the economy to a halt! Surely the stock market went into a tailspin when the halting of the US economy was announced by the EPA! No one is safe!

No, some are safe. The stock of the winners will do well.

I'm heartened that it is recognized that government policy is a great way to make money. Regulating the competition out of business is the cheapest way to obtain a competitive advantage.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

One more thing: if those SOB's make beer really expensive, there will be revolt!!!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,116]

>So, when I say that political processes pick winners and losers
>I suppose I am correct.

Of course they do. Indeed, that's sort of the definition of democracy (any representative political system come to think of it.)

>I'm heartened that it is recognized that government policy is a
>great way to make money.

Snarkiness aside, any such change is going to result in winners and losers. The political decision to end slavery resulted in a LOT of very unhappy people who lost a lot of money. The decision to go to the Moon resulted in a lot of firms making a ton of money. The Manhattan Project - same thing. The Cold War resulted in some winners and some losers. Should we have not done any of those things, so as to disprove that "government policy is a great way to make money?"

More recently, the EPA's rulings on HC emissions, NOx and SOx emissions and CO have had a very dramatic effect on car design. Car executives predicted at the time that they would basically be the end of the car industry.

Yet today you can breathe the air in LA, and car companies are still in business making SUV's. The smarter car companies designed the engine control computers, fuel injection systems and catalytic converters that let a 4000 pound SUV get better gas mileage and emit less pollution than a 3000 pound car did in the 60's.

Would we be better off today if the EPA had been run by car company executives? Should we have listened to Ford when they said in 1972 "if the EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down?" Should we have believed them when they claimed that people didn't understand the science, that CO and NOx weren't really a problem, that the technological hurdles to make less polluting cars were insurmountable?

I guess you could decide that every such decision of the EPA was an example of how "regulating the competition out of business is the cheapest way to obtain a competitive advantage." But that's a pretty intricate conspiracy theory to maintain. And when you look at the results - cleaner air, better cars, more people driving and higher average fuel economy - the claim that it's "all politically motivated" and "not based on science" is very hard indeed to maintain.

[billvon 3,116]

>One more thing: if those SOB's make beer really expensive, there will be revolt!

Until some wiley entrepreneur realizes that CO2 can be sequestered in beer cans.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Those who are now known to be frauds

So name them.

CRU and Mann for starters

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 226]

. . . and just to tie in to everything . . .

"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."

— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008



BUT WAIT - you mean that the President might have been deceived by information gatherers?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 23]

Quote

. . . and just to tie in to everything . . .

"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."

— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008



BUT WAIT - you mean that the President might have been deceived by information gatherers?

For him I believe it is all about political angles. Truth and data are less important than hope n change

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

one could say - "at the time, it was the best info he thought he had - hell, several countries felt the same way based on the same intelligence, er data. But now he has new info and if there's not WMDs, er real AGW support, the real test of his character is to see if he makes the right decision based on the new info."

End this war

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Those who are now known to be frauds

So name them.

CRU and Mann for starters

Try again, this time paying attention (They were NOT in the list I posted.)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,116]

>"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating
>climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."

Yep. For 99.99% of the scientists out there, that statement is true. Glad our president listens to such people rather than deniers/truthers/conspiracy theorists.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear

Yeah, right:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

-0.7C / century to cooling converted to a +1.2C / century warming

http://www.surfacestations.org/

69% of all USHCN sites surveyed with 2C+ error due to siting

Looks like it's the AGW folks that are the 'truthers'.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,116]

>Yeah, right:
>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
>http://www.surfacestations.org/

>Looks like it's the AGW folks that are the 'truthers'.

I'll take your two denier articles and raise you three truther articles!

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

Proof that there was active thermite at the 9/11 site

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

Proof that the material seen dripping out was NOT molten aluminum

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

Proof that investigators LIED about firefighter's reports!

Look like the truthers have even more 'proof' than you do of a vast conspiracy. About as credible though.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Look like the truthers have even more 'proof' than you do of a vast conspiracy. About as credible though.

How many of those are taken from NIST data?

Must suck when you can't refute the data.

I guess the UK Met must be truthers, too - after all, why would they have to re-evaluate things if 'the science is settled' and 'the data is robust' (or whatever the alarmist bullshit-du-jour is).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706