rushmc 23 #101 November 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteBill 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. Quote How 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. And a theory is not proven when data is hidden, destroyed or ignored because it does not support your hypotheses. A theory is not proven when papers are NOT ALLOWED to be peer reviewed. And never should there ever ever be science by " consensus". That is a joke all by itself"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #102 November 25, 2009 Hannity's not even close on 2009 temperatures "In three separate instances over two weeks, Sean Hannity has baselessly asserted that "this is one of the coldest years on record" to claim that climate change is a "hoax" or not "real." In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and Britain's Met Office have stated that to date, 2009 is among the warmest years on record." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #103 November 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe 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. Too bad that's not what the AGW folks did - when the results didn't match the hypothesis, they changed the data until it DID match, instead of changing the hypothesis. QuoteA theory is not disproved by hacking emails and taking what some scientists say out of context. Whatever.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #104 November 26, 2009 >Bill what would it take for your to change you mind on AGW? A change in our understanding of radiative heat transfer, atmospheric chemistry, the CO2 cycle and geology. Actually two of those four would probably be sufficient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #105 November 26, 2009 >This thread has gotten very quiet very quickly Seemed to happen as soon as I asked you to back up your statements. Coincidence? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #106 November 26, 2009 Quote>Bill what would it take for your to change you mind on AGW? A change in our understanding of radiative heat transfer, atmospheric chemistry, the CO2 cycle and geology. Actually two of those four would probably be sufficient. So, proof that the AGW scientists were falsifying data and results carries no weight with you. Interesting. Certainly blows any argument of objectivity out of the water.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #107 November 26, 2009 Quote>This thread has gotten very quiet very quickly Seemed to happen as soon as I asked you to back up your statements. Coincidence? There was a book written within the last 10 years that names everyone of those who's emails have now been published. Everything they were doing was pointed out at that time. The author got ripped to shreds. So, the emails now public are not something that exposes anything, it validates it. Coincidence? But, it has never been like you to drag a thread off topic. And now, with the very "scientists" you so routinely quoted so thoroughly discredited, I have say how you are keeping a stiff upper lip"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #108 November 26, 2009 Quote>Bill what would it take for your to change you mind on AGW? A change in our understanding of radiative heat transfer, atmospheric chemistry, the CO2 cycle and geology. Actually two of those four would probably be sufficient. At least the effects in our atmosphere may have just been handed a large change, seeing how the data used to support these is now shown to be less than repeatable."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #109 November 26, 2009 QuoteQuote>Bill what would it take for your to change you mind on AGW? A change in our understanding of radiative heat transfer, atmospheric chemistry, the CO2 cycle and geology. Actually two of those four would probably be sufficient. So, proof that the AGW scientists were falsifying data and results carries no weight with you. Interesting. Certainly blows any argument of objectivity out of the water. If you're referring to "...trick..." and " ...hide the decline...", you might want to wait for real proof, if any, that data was falsified. I have seen no proof of falsified data. I have, however, seen proof of lack of objectivity, intent to stifle dissent, intent to interfere with peer review, intent to interfere with publication of scientific research, proof of collusion with non-scientific groups, proof of money chasing, etc. "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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #110 November 26, 2009 QuoteIf you're referring to "...trick..." and " ...hide the decline...", you might want to wait for real proof, if any, that data was falsified. I have seen no proof of falsified data. I am not. M&M have attempted to publish reviews of Mann and Briffa's work but were (imagine THAT) not granted peer review. Now we know at least some of the reason why. QuoteI have, however, seen proof of lack of objectivity, intent to stifle dissent, intent to interfere with peer review, intent to interfere with publication of scientific research, proof of collusion with non-scientific groups, proof of money chasing, etc. There's already been stuff that's shown where temperature data was jiggered with (Mann's "Nature Trick" and more recently 'flipping proxies), as well as the 'magic disappearing proxies' that Mann and Briffa used. The emails are just icing on the cake. I'm sure that Bill or kallend would LOVE to chime in with 'where's the peer-reviewed papers, then', but we've already seen THOSE emails, too.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #111 November 26, 2009 >So, proof that the AGW scientists were falsifying data and results >carries no weight with you. Correct. Just as proof that deniers are funded by oil companies, have done the same for smoking, have falsified data and have lied about their qualifications carries no weight with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #112 November 26, 2009 Quote>So, proof that the AGW scientists were falsifying data and results >carries no weight with you. QuoteCorrect. . Wow......... Says is all I quess"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #113 November 26, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #114 November 26, 2009 >And now, with the very "scientists" you so routinely quoted so >thoroughly discredited . . . Only in your mind. Which should be no change; you have never given any scientist who disagrees with you a hint of credit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #115 November 26, 2009 I have seen this site come up a couple of times lately in my searchs. Not very familar with them yet but they do an interesting piece on the CRU and the emails releated to the global warming fraud that is now exposed. This links posts to a pending law suit against NASA for the withholding of docs ordered realed in an FOIA case among other things http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m11d25-Climategate-CEI-to-sue-NASA-Goddard-for-Climate-Change-fraud"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #116 November 26, 2009 Quote>And now, with the very "scientists" you so routinely quoted so >thoroughly discredited . . . Only in your mind. Which should be no change; you have never given any scientist who disagrees with you a hint of credit. And I have been prove right now havent I!! Withheld docs and data, manipulated data and models are now proof that this whole scam was never about climate, but rather an attempt to force others live as the GW nuts think we should all live. The arogance and disgusting attitude is from that side as now all who care to look can see"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #117 November 26, 2009 >And I have been prove right now havent I!! Nope. The facts of AGW still hold: 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas 2) We have been increasing its concentration due to our CO2 emissions 3) Increases in CO2 result in more heat retained in the radiative system that is the Earth >Withheld docs and data, manipulated data and models are now >proof that this whole scam was never about climate, but rather an >attempt to force others live as the GW nuts think we should all live. Funny - when deniers do that you consider them heroes. Still waiting on those links, BTW. If you want to claim one side "withheld data" it would be nice for you not to do the same thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #118 November 26, 2009 Quote >And I have been prove right now havent I!! Nope. The facts of AGW still hold: 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas 2) We have been increasing its concentration due to our CO2 emissions 3) Increases in CO2 result in more heat retained in the radiative system that is the Earth >Withheld docs and data, manipulated data and models are now >proof that this whole scam was never about climate, but rather an >attempt to force others live as the GW nuts think we should all live. Funny - when deniers do that you consider them heroes. Still waiting on those links, BTW. If you want to claim one side "withheld data" it would be nice for you not to do the same thing. Still holds Except the data now known does not support your position. Along with those "scientists" you so oft refered to and quoted. ya, those three points you list are in play. And if they were the only points in play then you would have a point. But, since it now has been proven that data/studies/papers that did NOT support the church of man made global warming. have been withheld to keep the myth (the god) all powerful there must me more to it. More that is yet to be understood. Which has been the position of the deniers all along."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #119 November 26, 2009 Quote Quote >And I have been prove right now havent I!! Nope. The facts of AGW still hold: 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas 2) We have been increasing its concentration due to our CO2 emissions 3) Increases in CO2 result in more heat retained in the radiative system that is the Earth >Withheld docs and data, manipulated data and models are now >proof that this whole scam was never about climate, but rather an >attempt to force others live as the GW nuts think we should all live. Funny - when deniers do that you consider them heroes. Still waiting on those links, BTW. If you want to claim one side "withheld data" it would be nice for you not to do the same thing. Still holds Except the data now known does not support your position. Along with those "scientists" you so oft refered to and quoted. . I think you have misinterpreted the information in the emails. It isn't the smoking gun you seem to think it is.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #120 November 26, 2009 More of the fraud and yes, kallend, they are all that and more. but I understand your need to change the discussion NASA and sea ice http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m2d22-Arctic-sea-ice-underestimated-by-193000-square-miles Ice back to 1979 leaves (NASA) http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d11-Arctic-Sea-Ice-returns-to-1979-levels Oceans cooling acording to NASA http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA And a follow up on ocean cooling and Anarctic warming and cooling http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d23-Ocean-cooling-follow-up-and-Antarctic-warming-AND-cooling-reports"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #121 November 26, 2009 And the scandal apears to be growingNow New Zealand http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink From the link Quote The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. ... "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #122 November 27, 2009 Quote And the scandal apears to be growingNow New Zealand http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink From the link Quote The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. ... Do you actually read the links you post? The article DEBUNKS the quote in your post... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #123 November 27, 2009 Quote Quote And the scandal apears to be growingNow New Zealand http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink From the link Quote The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. ... Do you actually read the links you post? The article DEBUNKS the quote in your post AhIt is FROM the link"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,595 #124 November 27, 2009 Quote Quote Quote And the scandal apears to be growingNow New Zealand http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink From the link Quote The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. ... Do you actually read the links you post? The article DEBUNKS the quote in your post AhIt is FROM the link You are unbelievable. Kallend didn't say that the quote wasn't in the link, he said that the rest of the link completely debunks the quoted part. The quote is from the NZCSC attacking the NIWA. The link is to a blog post that explains exactly why the NZCSC's criticism is wrong, and based on exactly the kind of data manipulation they are accusing the NIWA of. That you could actually read the post that you linked to and only take away from it the fact that the NIWA was accused of manipulating data is, as I said, unbelievable.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #125 November 27, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote And the scandal apears to be growingNow New Zealand http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink From the link Quote The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. ... Do you actually read the links you post? The article DEBUNKS the quote in your post AhIt is FROM the link You are unbelievable. Kallend didn't say that the quote wasn't in the link, he said that the rest of the link completely debunks the quoted part. The quote is from the NZCSC attacking the NIWA. The link is to a blog post that explains exactly why the NZCSC's criticism is wrong, and based on exactly the kind of data manipulation they are accusing the NIWA of. That you could actually read the post that you linked to and only take away from it the fact that the NIWA was accused of manipulating data is, as I said, unbelievable. Dude, I made no claims about was or was not correct. I posted a link to show a "scandal" that may on one side or the other. The point? AWG prpoents are going to be hard pressed to be trusted anymore. Science by "consensus" is being shown for the fraud it has always been (regardless or ones opion) Sure the shit is going to fly. But the deniers will not and should not fear the bull shit harasment pitched by the AWG supporters anymore. Now maybe a real debate can be had"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 5 of 22 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. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 3,118 #104 November 26, 2009 >Bill what would it take for your to change you mind on AGW? A change in our understanding of radiative heat transfer, atmospheric chemistry, the CO2 cycle and geology. Actually two of those four would probably be sufficient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #105 November 26, 2009 >This thread has gotten very quiet very quickly Seemed to happen as soon as I asked you to back up your statements. Coincidence? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #106 November 26, 2009 Quote>Bill what would it take for your to change you mind on AGW? A change in our understanding of radiative heat transfer, atmospheric chemistry, the CO2 cycle and geology. Actually two of those four would probably be sufficient. So, proof that the AGW scientists were falsifying data and results carries no weight with you. Interesting. Certainly blows any argument of objectivity out of the water.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #107 November 26, 2009 Quote>This thread has gotten very quiet very quickly Seemed to happen as soon as I asked you to back up your statements. Coincidence? There was a book written within the last 10 years that names everyone of those who's emails have now been published. Everything they were doing was pointed out at that time. The author got ripped to shreds. So, the emails now public are not something that exposes anything, it validates it. Coincidence? But, it has never been like you to drag a thread off topic. And now, with the very "scientists" you so routinely quoted so thoroughly discredited, I have say how you are keeping a stiff upper lip"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #108 November 26, 2009 Quote>Bill what would it take for your to change you mind on AGW? A change in our understanding of radiative heat transfer, atmospheric chemistry, the CO2 cycle and geology. Actually two of those four would probably be sufficient. At least the effects in our atmosphere may have just been handed a large change, seeing how the data used to support these is now shown to be less than repeatable."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #109 November 26, 2009 QuoteQuote>Bill what would it take for your to change you mind on AGW? A change in our understanding of radiative heat transfer, atmospheric chemistry, the CO2 cycle and geology. Actually two of those four would probably be sufficient. So, proof that the AGW scientists were falsifying data and results carries no weight with you. Interesting. Certainly blows any argument of objectivity out of the water. If you're referring to "...trick..." and " ...hide the decline...", you might want to wait for real proof, if any, that data was falsified. I have seen no proof of falsified data. I have, however, seen proof of lack of objectivity, intent to stifle dissent, intent to interfere with peer review, intent to interfere with publication of scientific research, proof of collusion with non-scientific groups, proof of money chasing, etc. "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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #110 November 26, 2009 QuoteIf you're referring to "...trick..." and " ...hide the decline...", you might want to wait for real proof, if any, that data was falsified. I have seen no proof of falsified data. I am not. M&M have attempted to publish reviews of Mann and Briffa's work but were (imagine THAT) not granted peer review. Now we know at least some of the reason why. QuoteI have, however, seen proof of lack of objectivity, intent to stifle dissent, intent to interfere with peer review, intent to interfere with publication of scientific research, proof of collusion with non-scientific groups, proof of money chasing, etc. There's already been stuff that's shown where temperature data was jiggered with (Mann's "Nature Trick" and more recently 'flipping proxies), as well as the 'magic disappearing proxies' that Mann and Briffa used. The emails are just icing on the cake. I'm sure that Bill or kallend would LOVE to chime in with 'where's the peer-reviewed papers, then', but we've already seen THOSE emails, too.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #111 November 26, 2009 >So, proof that the AGW scientists were falsifying data and results >carries no weight with you. Correct. Just as proof that deniers are funded by oil companies, have done the same for smoking, have falsified data and have lied about their qualifications carries no weight with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #112 November 26, 2009 Quote>So, proof that the AGW scientists were falsifying data and results >carries no weight with you. QuoteCorrect. . Wow......... Says is all I quess"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #113 November 26, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #114 November 26, 2009 >And now, with the very "scientists" you so routinely quoted so >thoroughly discredited . . . Only in your mind. Which should be no change; you have never given any scientist who disagrees with you a hint of credit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #115 November 26, 2009 I have seen this site come up a couple of times lately in my searchs. Not very familar with them yet but they do an interesting piece on the CRU and the emails releated to the global warming fraud that is now exposed. This links posts to a pending law suit against NASA for the withholding of docs ordered realed in an FOIA case among other things http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m11d25-Climategate-CEI-to-sue-NASA-Goddard-for-Climate-Change-fraud"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #116 November 26, 2009 Quote>And now, with the very "scientists" you so routinely quoted so >thoroughly discredited . . . Only in your mind. Which should be no change; you have never given any scientist who disagrees with you a hint of credit. And I have been prove right now havent I!! Withheld docs and data, manipulated data and models are now proof that this whole scam was never about climate, but rather an attempt to force others live as the GW nuts think we should all live. The arogance and disgusting attitude is from that side as now all who care to look can see"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #117 November 26, 2009 >And I have been prove right now havent I!! Nope. The facts of AGW still hold: 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas 2) We have been increasing its concentration due to our CO2 emissions 3) Increases in CO2 result in more heat retained in the radiative system that is the Earth >Withheld docs and data, manipulated data and models are now >proof that this whole scam was never about climate, but rather an >attempt to force others live as the GW nuts think we should all live. Funny - when deniers do that you consider them heroes. Still waiting on those links, BTW. If you want to claim one side "withheld data" it would be nice for you not to do the same thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #118 November 26, 2009 Quote >And I have been prove right now havent I!! Nope. The facts of AGW still hold: 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas 2) We have been increasing its concentration due to our CO2 emissions 3) Increases in CO2 result in more heat retained in the radiative system that is the Earth >Withheld docs and data, manipulated data and models are now >proof that this whole scam was never about climate, but rather an >attempt to force others live as the GW nuts think we should all live. Funny - when deniers do that you consider them heroes. Still waiting on those links, BTW. If you want to claim one side "withheld data" it would be nice for you not to do the same thing. Still holds Except the data now known does not support your position. Along with those "scientists" you so oft refered to and quoted. ya, those three points you list are in play. And if they were the only points in play then you would have a point. But, since it now has been proven that data/studies/papers that did NOT support the church of man made global warming. have been withheld to keep the myth (the god) all powerful there must me more to it. More that is yet to be understood. Which has been the position of the deniers all along."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #119 November 26, 2009 Quote Quote >And I have been prove right now havent I!! Nope. The facts of AGW still hold: 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas 2) We have been increasing its concentration due to our CO2 emissions 3) Increases in CO2 result in more heat retained in the radiative system that is the Earth >Withheld docs and data, manipulated data and models are now >proof that this whole scam was never about climate, but rather an >attempt to force others live as the GW nuts think we should all live. Funny - when deniers do that you consider them heroes. Still waiting on those links, BTW. If you want to claim one side "withheld data" it would be nice for you not to do the same thing. Still holds Except the data now known does not support your position. Along with those "scientists" you so oft refered to and quoted. . I think you have misinterpreted the information in the emails. It isn't the smoking gun you seem to think it is.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #120 November 26, 2009 More of the fraud and yes, kallend, they are all that and more. but I understand your need to change the discussion NASA and sea ice http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m2d22-Arctic-sea-ice-underestimated-by-193000-square-miles Ice back to 1979 leaves (NASA) http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d11-Arctic-Sea-Ice-returns-to-1979-levels Oceans cooling acording to NASA http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA And a follow up on ocean cooling and Anarctic warming and cooling http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d23-Ocean-cooling-follow-up-and-Antarctic-warming-AND-cooling-reports"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #121 November 26, 2009 And the scandal apears to be growingNow New Zealand http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink From the link Quote The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. ... "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #122 November 27, 2009 Quote And the scandal apears to be growingNow New Zealand http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink From the link Quote The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. ... Do you actually read the links you post? The article DEBUNKS the quote in your post... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #123 November 27, 2009 Quote Quote And the scandal apears to be growingNow New Zealand http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink From the link Quote The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. ... Do you actually read the links you post? The article DEBUNKS the quote in your post AhIt is FROM the link"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #124 November 27, 2009 Quote Quote Quote And the scandal apears to be growingNow New Zealand http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink From the link Quote The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. ... Do you actually read the links you post? The article DEBUNKS the quote in your post AhIt is FROM the link You are unbelievable. Kallend didn't say that the quote wasn't in the link, he said that the rest of the link completely debunks the quoted part. The quote is from the NZCSC attacking the NIWA. The link is to a blog post that explains exactly why the NZCSC's criticism is wrong, and based on exactly the kind of data manipulation they are accusing the NIWA of. That you could actually read the post that you linked to and only take away from it the fact that the NIWA was accused of manipulating data is, as I said, unbelievable.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #125 November 27, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote And the scandal apears to be growingNow New Zealand http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink From the link Quote The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. ... Do you actually read the links you post? The article DEBUNKS the quote in your post AhIt is FROM the link You are unbelievable. Kallend didn't say that the quote wasn't in the link, he said that the rest of the link completely debunks the quoted part. The quote is from the NZCSC attacking the NIWA. The link is to a blog post that explains exactly why the NZCSC's criticism is wrong, and based on exactly the kind of data manipulation they are accusing the NIWA of. That you could actually read the post that you linked to and only take away from it the fact that the NIWA was accused of manipulating data is, as I said, unbelievable. Dude, I made no claims about was or was not correct. I posted a link to show a "scandal" that may on one side or the other. The point? AWG prpoents are going to be hard pressed to be trusted anymore. Science by "consensus" is being shown for the fraud it has always been (regardless or ones opion) Sure the shit is going to fly. But the deniers will not and should not fear the bull shit harasment pitched by the AWG supporters anymore. Now maybe a real debate can be had"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
