Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
By
mikkey, in Speakers Corner
Recommended Posts
rushmc 23
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,116
Nope. 2005 was the warmest year per NASA:
===========
2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century
01.24.06
The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world.
Image displaying the five warmest years in the past century. Image to right: 2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004 followed as the next four warmest years. Credit: NASA
Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City noted that the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century was recorded in their analysis for the 2005 calendar year.
============
Now - ready, set - DENY!
billvon 3,116
>be out, getting a real job.
Yep. They'd likely be working for Exxon, being paid to claim that there's no such thing as global warming.
mnealtx 0
Quote>You know, if they had to seek private funds, for their work, they'd all
>be out, getting a real job.
Yep. They'd likely be working for Exxon, being paid to claim that there's no such thing as global warming.
Nah, they'd just hire you away from your volunteer work...

I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
rushmc 23
nuff said
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
1969912 0
QuoteThis thread has gotten very quiet very quickly
Well, the dirty underbelly (and probably only a small part of that dirty underbelly) of the AGW INDUSTRY has been exposed. Lots of head scratching and "what do we do now" going on....
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
jakee 1,595
QuoteYou know, if they had to seek private funds, for their work, they'd all be out, getting a real job.
Yeah, 'cos we all know that science isn't really work... it's just a cushy old boys club, right?
My housmate's just started a PhD, he's in the lab maybe 10 hours a day, often in on weekends and spends a whole lot of his evenings at home reading through literature in the field, working through results data and designing his next experiments. All for what probably works out as somewhat less than minimum wage.
Bloody slacker needs to get out and see how the real world works!
jakee 1,595
QuoteHansen works for NASA correct>
nuff said
The same Hansen you were salivating over when a cherry picked sentence of a paper of his made you think he'd switched to the anti-AGW side?
That Hansen?

brenthutch 444
nerdgirl 0
---- --- ----
Does anyone who’s following this more closely than I, (Jim [1969912] ?) know if the reported change w/r/t processing data, the “trick,” coincides with the start of the Mauna Loa direct data?
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
Quote
---- --- ----
Does anyone who’s following this more closely than I, (Jim [1969912] ?) know if the reported change w/r/t processing data, the “trick,” coincides with the start of the Mauna Loa direct data?
/Marg
Yes. I'm not sure that this has any significance, however, since the decline discussed is for tree ring reconstructed temperature vs. observed local temperature. There is a recent 2007 review in Global and Planetary Change by D-Arrigio that goes into quite a bit more detail.
QuoteBill what would it take for your to change you mind on AGW? How long would the planet have to cool?
I know that you didn't ask me directly, but I think it's an excellent question.
For me, at least, if the broad consensus in the scientific community reversed it might change my mind.
QuoteHow much, and what type of proof would you need?
The scientific method doesn't work that way. Theories are not proven. Instead, hypotheses are tested. If the results of the test are consistent with a theory, that theory gains strength and credibility. If the test is not consistent, then the theory is modified.
A theory is not disproved by hacking emails and taking what some scientists say out of context.
You know, if they had to seek private funds, for their work, they'd all be out, getting a real job.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites