The REAL global warming

[maiden22]

Look what the conspiracytheoristsBIGOILblahblahdrivel hatemongers have done now. Not content with actively seeking to destroy the planet, they are hounding a respected scientist to the point that he has "contemplated suicide".

Simply astonishing article from The Times - and the MSM wonders why circulations are falling. Pity they can't find some "trick" to hide the decline.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece

 

[rags2riches]

Monday laughs


Two days before the day after tomorrow

http://www.southparkstudios.co.uk/clips/sp_vid_103844/

 

[maiden22]

More on the IPCC.

As we know, anyone who questions this fine body is a ranting denialist conspiracy hate-monger. It made one small HONEST mistake, but that's it - the so-called glaciergate.

Well ok, there was also Amazongate, but that's it.

Here comes Africagate:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/and-now-for-africagate.html

Just to be clear - do not believe a word of this. Ignore it, because if you don't you are a conspiracy theorist.

 

[maiden22]

Barjon, there seems to be a misunderstanding. "Craighole" is not an insult - far from it. It is a term of endearment rather.

I confess I cannot see how one could view it otherwise.

Unless...wait a minute. I see what's going on here. You're part of the conspiracy too!

 

[dcraig1]

Look what the conspiracytheoristsBIGOILblahblahdrivel hatemongers have done now. Not content with actively seeking to destroy the planet, they are hounding a respected scientist to the point that he has "contemplated suicide".

Simply astonishing article from The Times - and the MSM wonders why circulations are falling. Pity they can't find some "trick" to hide the decline.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece

 

[dcraig1]

The fact that most of the Freedom of Information requests were for data that was already publicly and freely available from the Global Historical Climatology Network servers shows what a beat up this all is.

And a look at the dates on the files on the NCDC FTP server shows availability for years:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/

A genuine researcher would always have known this. Even a 'researcher' too stupid to use Google could have contacted any centre for climate research in the world and found out. Genuine researchers would not trouble fellow researches for data that was freely and easily available elsewhere.

What was going on was the equivalent of an Internet denial of service attack. The intent was to obstruct the research at UEA.

Phil Jones deserves an apology.

 

[dcraig1]

Look at what you find if you poke around a bit in the cesspit. One of the FOI requests (FOI_09_96) inadvertently sent to UEA:

"I hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements)restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involing the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested 1]

1. the date of any applicable confidentiality agreements;
2. the parties to such confidentiality agreement, including the full name of any organization;
3. a copy of the section of the confidentiality agreement that "prevents further transmission to non-academics".
4. a copy of the entire confidentiality agreement,"

my emphasis

It is plain to see these 'scientific researchers' were using the same FOI request, and just substituting a list of five different countries in each one ....... but they slipped up and sent the form letter unedited.

And why could not the Steve Watts of this world, if they wanted for example the Australian data, contact the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and ask them for the terms of use?

The intent is crystal clear - to conduct a denial of service attack on UEA.

Now just what has all this to do with genuine research? Has science degenerated into filling out form letters? It's not science. It's scum bag politics.

It's not even mature and adult behavior.

 

[dcraig1]

Fabricated quote used to discredit climate scientist

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...d-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html

Yet another instance of downright lying by one of the noisy deniers, this time Christopher Booker who writes in the Telegraph.

To support the same old accusations of "alarmism" Booker fraudulently quotes Sir John Houghton who was a key figure in setting up the IPCC as saying:

"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen."

This lie has been repeated over and over again by denialists.

What Houghton actually said was:

"There are those who will say 'unless we announce disasters, no one will listen', but I'm not one of them."

Anybody that has to resort to deliberate misquoting to establish a case is not worth listening to.

 

[Adamus]

Debunking climate sceptics is a full time job. The Americans e.g. climateprogress.org have a particularly thankless task due to the amount of corporate money going to the sceptical think-tanks there.

So we may've been there and got the t-shirt but because climate sceptics are agents provocateurs and they don't stop when proved wrong. They just reword what they said and say it somewhere else.

One of the basic downsides of Freedom of Speech. You just have to man-mark them, to be there to peer review them on a permanent basis - and with absolutely 100% accuracy or they will dent your reputation! No room for sloppiness now! We need someone like Rainman who is obsessed with climatology.

 

[maiden22]

Re: Fabricated quote used to discredit climate scientist

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...d-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html

Yet another instance of downright lying by one of the noisy deniers, this time Christopher Booker who writes in the Telegraph.

To support the same old accusations of "alarmism" Booker fraudulently quotes Sir John Houghton who was a key figure in setting up the IPCC as saying:

"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen."

This lie has been repeated over and over again by denialists.

What Houghton actually said was:

"There are those who will say 'unless we announce disasters, no one will listen', but I'm not one of them."

Anybody that has to resort to deliberate misquoting to establish a case is not worth listening to.

Hilariously, you have misquoted in order to correct a misquote.

You state that:

What Houghton actually said was:

"There are those who will say 'unless we announce disasters, no one will listen', but I'm not one of them."

The clear implication being that this was the source of the oft-repeated misquote, or lie, going back well over a decade.

In fact, this is simply what Houghton told the Independent in a very recent article in response to this long-running misquote. The article goes on to say that no basis for the quote can be established, not that anyone deliberately chopped off the ends of the quote.

It is impossible to believe that you could not have known this as you have presumably read the article in question. It is a very different thing to suggest that a quote has erroneously become common currency from an unknown source and quite another to present a recent statement in response to the misquote as the basis for the original quote.

I shall therefore heed your advice: Anybody that has to resort to deliberate misquoting to establish a case is not worth listening to

As an aside, you have accused Booker of acting fraudulently. Whenever a mistake is uncovered on the other side, you insist that it is perfectly honest and any suggestion to the contrary is slander, libel, besmirching honest reputations and so on. Yet you accuse Booker of fraud without any proof - this could very easily be a genuine mistake, as even the Independent article says that many sources attribute it to Houghton's own book. Booker could have taken it from one of these in good faith.

Yet you libel rolleyes an honest journalist, trying his best, blah blah dribble.

You are truly pathetic and your arguments get more and more dismal by the day.

 

[Adamus]

It's meant to be funny, but it's a bit too close to the truth.

 

[maiden22]

It's meant to be funny, but it's a bit too close to the truth.

You missed out option E:

I don't, although doubtless it is possible, if unlikely, that some people genuinely equate inhabiting the wilder shores of climate alarmism with "taking environmental concerns seriously".

 

[rags2riches]

Dear global warming advocates, please share your opinions on Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" documentary.


http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8847562857479496579

 

[maiden22]

Dear global warming advocates, please share your opinions on Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" documentary.

This sums it up fairly well I feel:

 

[maiden22]

More questions over the temperature record as presented, in this case by NASA.

http://www.climategate.com/australiagate-now-nasa-caught-in-trick-over-aussie-climate-data#more-3821

An extract:

"the “Mackay Sugar Mill Station” was far hotter in the 1920’s and 30’s but GISS “disappeared” this data. However, if we add the warming period back in we find that the warming trend almost disappears to become less then 0.2 degrees per 100 years!"

I don't know much about the source but I don't think it has been peer-reviewed so it's unlikely to be an outright fabrication.

To save time, I will post the alarmist response:

1. Not peer-reviewed.
2. Perfectly good reason for increasing the observed warming 10 FOLD. Don't know what it is, but some science people say it's ok, so there. These will be the same science people that came up with the original data, but don't let that worry you. They're scientists and you're just an idiot.
3. In isolation this does not prove that there are communists under your bed, so we can safely ignore it.
4. Deniers are worse than Hitler (also Stalin, although we tend not to make too much of his monstrous crimes as he was supposedly "left-wing").
5. The emperor's new suit is wonderful, and I don't care what you say.
5. Conspiracytheoryblahblahdrivel.

Anyway, have a read and make up your own mind.

 

[maiden22]

I have never come across anyone who does not believe in climate change, although on the warmista side there are apparently those who believe that change can be halted, hence their campaign against it :

For most of us, however, we accept climate change as we accept gravity.

The impending doom scenario so beloved of the MSM, politicians and other cultural Marxists, on the other hand, has always been a rather transparent lie. Sea levels to rise by [insert big number of choice], polar bears frying on the ice, hurricanes, temperature to rise by [see above instruction], and so on ad infinitum. And all because a trace gas, vital to all life on earth, has increased slightly.

It sounds ridiculous and so it is. But how on earth have the scammers got away with it? Such a huge lie surely cannot be told? Here are some interesting thoughts on the subject of the "Big Lie":

"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves... would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.


Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

A prize for anyone who knows who wrote this and where (without cutting, pasting and googling ). A clue: the book it comes from was a real struggle.

 

[rags2riches]

Friday laughs

This sums it up fairly well I feel:

Careful there! The temperature is going up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ymxLA5oRYI

 

[Benton D Struckcheon]

I have never come across anyone who does not believe in climate change, although on the warmista side there are apparently those who believe that change can be halted, hence their campaign against it :

For most of us, however, we accept climate change as we accept gravity.

The impending doom scenario so beloved of the MSM, politicians and other cultural Marxists, on the other hand, has always been a rather transparent lie. Sea levels to rise by [insert big number of choice], polar bears frying on the ice, hurricanes, temperature to rise by [see above instruction], and so on ad infinitum. And all because a trace gas, vital to all life on earth, has increased slightly.

It sounds ridiculous and so it is. But how on earth have the scammers got away with it? Such a huge lie surely cannot be told? Here are some interesting thoughts on the subject of the "Big Lie":

"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves... would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.


Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

A prize for anyone who knows who wrote this and where (without cutting, pasting and googling ). A clue: the book it comes from was a real struggle.

Godwin's Law:

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[3][2]

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

 

[maiden22]

Godwin's Law:

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[3][2]

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

Would you care to take a stab at explaining why this is a singularly idiotic post even in a thread as liberally endowed with idiocy as anything I have ever encoutered? I will of course be happy to do it for you, although I suspect that you will prefer the outcome of your own efforts.

 

[Benton D Struckcheon]

Would you care to take a stab at explaining why this is a singularly idiotic post even in a thread as liberally endowed with idiocy as anything I have ever encoutered? I will of course be happy to do it for you, although I suspect that you will prefer the outcome of your own efforts.

Are you serious? Or, let me put that another way: I can't believe you are.
Obviously, this went way way way over your head.
This thread has become a waste of precious bandwidth.