• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Some basic, empirical evidence in favor of AGW

Their emails contain none of the phrases you put in quotations. The things you put in quotations are not quotes, but rather faulty interpretations of quotes. Provide evidence of these assertions.

Tree rings do not have temperatures in the celcius scale encoded in arabic numerals. The reason they need "algorithms on the raw data" is because they have to convert non-temperature data (width of tree rings) into temperature data (degrees celcius).

Sorry, those were to paraphrase, not direct quotes... Let's say it was 'benign' as you're implying... why would they need to higher known AGW alarmists to vindicate them??

You've got the link between temperature and CO2 wrong... the temperature rises, so there's an increase in animal life producing higher levels of CO2 and as a result, the CO2 rate increases and so the plants grow bigger as a result of having more nutrients in the air... It's not the animals produce CO2 which heats the earth and causes trees to grow.

Quote from one o those emails that proves this. Preferably in a different thread, because this thread is about science, not conspiracies.

Yes, it's a conspiracy... and they've been caught... not prosecuted, but now they are being publicly shunned and nobody trusts them or their science... but they continue to march onwards as though they haven't been thoroughly discredited.

Provide evidence of these statements.
BBC News - Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'
For starters.... I can just here the 'no no I don't want to believe that the climate priests have lied to me'.

Because a graph of the temperature over the last 10,000 years is impossible to read when you're trying to show people what has happened over the last 200 years. I'm not sure what you think this is evidence of.

It's not 'evidence' of anything... it just so happens that the timing that gets used is always starts at the lowest point since that time. It's also funny because it's claimed 'oh you gotta look long term'... so you look at the 100000 -400000 year graphs and find that there's been at least 2 points that have been hotter, more CO2, etc... and that's only going off of the glacier core tests... those tests which show, in the raw form, that the correlation between climate and CO2 is that Climate PRECEDES CO2 levels between 700-1000 years.

Also, By strategically looking at this time period, is misleading when you can add a few hundred years worth of data and get the real picture that there's nothing terribly worrisome.

The effects of water vapor are included in these studies. Those explanations you refer to aren't implying that water vapor has no effect, they're only saying that water vapor has less of an effect than their % of atmosphere would indicate, for a few reasons.

So, let's ban water then... it's heating up the earth. I mean hell, we're talking about banning CO2, right?? Hell, why not just everybody stop exhaling... that'll do the earth good, right?

Rapid changes in temperature are linked with mass extinction events. Animals and plants can only adapt so quickly to changes in their climate. The concern isn't "warm = bad," it's "warming (or cooling) too quickly is bad." You can't just make a blanket statement that warmer will be better. You're just making up arguments now. It must really be easy to "win" a debate when you get to decide yourself what the opposition "says."

No, I was simplifying the point... that the warming, in REAL terms that CO2 increases MIGHT represent IS NOT of the 'catastrophic' temperature changes where the next 50 years will be glaciers down past New York City, or that the earth will heat up to the point where the oceans start to boil over... we're talking about a few degrees up COMPARED TO where that temperature WOULD HAVE BEEN without the extra influence of CO2.

Not control. Influence. It's hubris to think that our actions have no consequences. We're not trying to "control" the climate, we're trying to eliminate or minimize our impact on it, because the "optimum" climate is that which the existing ecosystem is adapted to.

No, not 'no consequences'... YES human activity, in SOME certain ways has VERY detrimental effects to the environment... but stop calling a nutrient a detriment... do you want to talk about REAL environmental concerns or carry on this exercise of mental masturbation trying to prove that a trace gas that's necessary to life on this planet is somehow a 'toxic influence'... rather then you know stuff that's ACTUALLY TOXIC??

Seriously, wouldn't it be better to study what's causing so many hermaphroditic frogs and fish in many areas lakes and streams... instead of trying to study what a change of PH of 7.5 - 7.4 is going to cause marine wildlife, and how many times the atmospheric levels of CO2 this would require??? Honestly, those studies MORE THEN DOUBLED atmospheric CO2 concentrations before ANY noticeable effect.

Now, if the sun were to shut off tomorrow... NO AMOUNT OF CO2 is going to fix the problem... you're NOT going to be able to optimize the climate... by the same token, if the energy coming off the sun multiplies several fold, then IT"S GOING TO BE HOT... the exception being the percentage of those rays that are reflected back into space due to cloud cover.


You implied I was somehow making an argument based off it.[

No, was illustrating how corrupt the climate science organizations have become.

Provide evidence that this was a deliberate misrepresentation rather than a typo.
BBC News - Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'

Not only was it a 'typo' that became the topic of a study that was peer-reviewd... but it was also based on unpublished information.

Who has been "debunked," and how can you prove this?

ALL OF THEM. The IPCC, the UN, the CRU, NASA, etc... the climate has been on a slow cooling trend... and these are the only groups left that think otherwise.

6+ billion dollars per year goes into climate science... that's the type of cash flow many would be interested in protecting.

Who said we need to reduce population?

- The club of Rome (final global revolution)
- The UN (agenda 21, the biological diversity study 1996)
- Bill Gates (heavily implied in multiple speeches)
- Prince Charles (wrote about wishing to reincarnate has a virus to help curb overpopulation
- Al Gore (implied)
- Ted Turner (80-90% human population reduction)
- Obama's Science advisor (sterilants in water to reduce population, among other things)
- Bush's science advisor (Same as Obama)
- Time magazine (various articles, 'case for killing granny', 'the one child myth', etc)
- etc... that's off the top of my head without looking for further examples

You're making up more arguments. I can do that too. Climate skeptics think that God will step in and fix the planet if we ruin it too much. I think relying on God to fix things is just insane. Hahaha. Silly skeptics.

I'm not making up your arguments, I'm showing you the logical extension and inevitable outcomes of this train of thought.

You see, the main problem is that you're looking to CO2 like it's an actual pollutant... it is NOT. It is a NUTRIENT. A vital to life on earth trace gas. To reduce it is to reduce the capacity of life on earth... plant life at least. About the only benefit to low CO2 levels is that because trees grow much slower in a CO2 starved environment, hardwoods become more plentiful.

So, until the 'green movement' returns it's focus TO LEGITIMATE pollution, then the 'science' is wasted on money grubbers hoping to keep the funding flowing, and not caring about making things better.

Seems to me that you're the one doing the propagandizing. You're just making up all kinds of things and claiming that "scientists" are saying it.

Just because I'm not directly sourcing except where needed does not mean that I'm making stuff up....

Next up you started talking about Mayan sacrifice so I'm done with you now. Start up a new thread about your conspiracies, showing evidence of all these absurd claims you have about what scientists are saying and doing. I'll be happy to respond there.

I swear Mayans were real... Maya civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I AM NOT the one making the absurd claims... the scientists are making the absurd claims, which I point out the absurdity by being absurd. If it's not directly from the scientists themsevles, it's from those that take the science and run with it, even where the science is based on flaws, fraud and fudging numbers.


Also worth noting:

That "medieval warm period" you refer to is the work of the same scientists you're claiming are untrustworthy. How do you know there ever was an ice age? How do you know there was a warm period 1000 years ago?

Yes, but there's far more data concerning the past that's been verified from many different angles and not simply the UN 'team consensus', at some point, there started to be a greater disconnect between these scientific publications and the real world... as I said before, previously the major concerns at least caused legitimate problems; DDT's, CFC's, dioxins, heavy metals, asbestos, sewage runoff of fertility drugs, that in most major cities the water is cleaner going into the city the coming out... waste dumping is a bigger concern... hell, even over-fishing / hunting is a greater concern to the ecosystem then CO2... This 'conspiracy' that you keep labelling it hasn't always been as strong and as evident in the science community... but the more this alarmist goes on, the more people are going to start believing it, and the more people are going to start acting out because of it... like the attempted discovery channel bomber... who idolized Al Gore and talked about Malthusian concepts, and the need for MORE global warming programming...

Make no mistake about it... AGW is a religion... it is NOT science as much as it is doctrine.

Why not just admit that global warming is about total shutdown of all industrial societies??? Or at least western societies... since the extremists don't seem to have qualms about Chinese pollution nearly as much as american... meanwhile in american factories there's such better standards that IF CO2 REALLY IS the big problem, moving stuff to china would ONLY serve to exacerbate the problem.
 
Sorry, those were to paraphrase, not direct quotes... Let's say it was 'benign' as you're implying... why would they need to higher known AGW alarmists to vindicate them??
If the wrongdoing were really so evident, you'd post direct quotes instead of just making stuff up. You haven't done that yet, I've noticed.

You've got the link between temperature and CO2 wrong... the temperature rises, so there's an increase in animal life producing higher levels of CO2 and as a result, the CO2 rate increases and so the plants grow bigger as a result of having more nutrients in the air... It's not the animals produce CO2 which heats the earth and causes trees to grow.

Uhh. Trees grow faster during warmer years, so have thicker rings. This has been very well-established for a very long time. Long before anybody thought to use it as a temperature proxy. Ask those guys who grow tree farms to make paper.

Yes, it's a conspiracy... and they've been caught... not prosecuted, but now they are being publicly shunned and nobody trusts them or their science... but they continue to march onwards as though they haven't been thoroughly discredited.

Your saying that they have been discredited doesn't make it true. I say they haven't. There, I just posted as much evidence as you have.
[citation needed]


BBC News - Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'
For starters.... I can just here the 'no no I don't want to believe that the climate priests have lied to me'.

So your evidence of deliberate deception is an article that has people saying it was a mistake. Ohhhkaaaayy...

It's not 'evidence' of anything... it just so happens that the timing that gets used is always starts at the lowest point since that time. It's also funny because it's claimed 'oh you gotta look long term'... so you look at the 100000 -400000 year graphs and find that there's been at least 2 points that have been hotter, more CO2, etc... and that's only going off of the glacier core tests... those tests which show, in the raw form, that the correlation between climate and CO2 is that Climate PRECEDES CO2 levels between 700-1000 years.

Also, By strategically looking at this time period, is misleading when you can add a few hundred years worth of data and get the real picture that there's nothing terribly worrisome.

Did you happen to notice the difference in slope of those temperature graphs? Compare the rate of temperature change today to the rate of temperature change... any time in the last 5000 years.


So, let's ban water then... it's heating up the earth. I mean hell, we're talking about banning CO2, right?? Hell, why not just everybody stop exhaling... that'll do the earth good, right?

Nature can handle the CO2 from animals (and people) breathing. It's part of the carbon cycle. Nature cannot absorb an extra 20 gigatons per year of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. You're being deliberately obtuse here. Standard conservatism: extrapolate the oppositions arguments to absurd extremes and attack that.


No, I was simplifying the point... that the warming, in REAL terms that CO2 increases MIGHT represent IS NOT of the 'catastrophic' temperature changes where the next 50 years will be glaciers down past New York City, or that the earth will heat up to the point where the oceans start to boil over... we're talking about a few degrees up COMPARED TO where that temperature WOULD HAVE BEEN without the extra influence of CO2.

Yes. Nobody claimed the ocean would boil. A couple degrees in a short period is damaging. We're not going extinct, but crop yields might drop and animal life might suffer.

No, not 'no consequences'... YES human activity, in SOME certain ways has VERY detrimental effects to the environment... but stop calling a nutrient a detriment... do you want to talk about REAL environmental concerns or carry on this exercise of mental masturbation trying to prove that a trace gas that's necessary to life on this planet is somehow a 'toxic influence'... rather then you know stuff that's ACTUALLY TOXIC??

Nobody has ever claimed that the danger in CO2 emissions was the toxicity. You're being deliberately obtuse again.

Seriously, wouldn't it be better to study what's causing so many hermaphroditic frogs and fish in many areas lakes and streams... instead of trying to study what a change of PH of 7.5 - 7.4 is going to cause marine wildlife, and how many times the atmospheric levels of CO2 this would require??? Honestly, those studies MORE THEN DOUBLED atmospheric CO2 concentrations before ANY noticeable effect.

[citation needed]

Now, if the sun were to shut off tomorrow... NO AMOUNT OF CO2 is going to fix the problem... you're NOT going to be able to optimize the climate... by the same token, if the energy coming off the sun multiplies several fold, then IT"S GOING TO BE HOT... the exception being the percentage of those rays that are reflected back into space due to cloud cover.

Yes. If crazy catastrophic things happened, the CO2 wouldn't matter. If a planet-crushing asteroid hit us tomorrow, CO2 wouldn't matter. If God decided he was done with us and poofed the earth out of existence, CO2 wouldn't matter. Why are you discussing absurd scenarios?


No, was illustrating how corrupt the climate science organizations have become.

You were making allegations without evidence. You're a rapist. I'm not going to provide any evidence of this, but you're definitely a rapist.


BBC News - Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'

Not only was it a 'typo' that became the topic of a study that was peer-reviewd... but it was also based on unpublished information.

So now it was a mistake? Make up your mind.


ALL OF THEM. The IPCC, the UN, the CRU, NASA, etc... the climate has been on a slow cooling trend... and these are the only groups left that think otherwise.

[citation needed]

6+ billion dollars per year goes into climate science... that's the type of cash flow many would be interested in protecting.



- The club of Rome (final global revolution)
- The UN (agenda 21, the biological diversity study 1996)
- Bill Gates (heavily implied in multiple speeches)
- Prince Charles (wrote about wishing to reincarnate has a virus to help curb overpopulation
- Al Gore (implied)
- Ted Turner (80-90% human population reduction)
- Obama's Science advisor (sterilants in water to reduce population, among other things)
- Bush's science advisor (Same as Obama)
- Time magazine (various articles, 'case for killing granny', 'the one child myth', etc)
- etc... that's off the top of my head without looking for further examples

[citation needed]



I'm not making up your arguments, I'm showing you the logical extension and inevitable outcomes of this train of thought.
You're extrapolating to absurd degrees.

You see, the main problem is that you're looking to CO2 like it's an actual pollutant... it is NOT. It is a NUTRIENT. A vital to life on earth trace gas. To reduce it is to reduce the capacity of life on earth... plant life at least. About the only benefit to low CO2 levels is that because trees grow much slower in a CO2 starved environment, hardwoods become more plentiful.

Salt is a vital nutrient. Therefore, more salt must be good for you, right?


So, until the 'green movement' returns it's focus TO LEGITIMATE pollution, then the 'science' is wasted on money grubbers hoping to keep the funding flowing, and not caring about making things better.



Just because I'm not directly sourcing except where needed does not mean that I'm making stuff up....
It also doesn't mean that you aren't.




Why not just go full Godwin? SCIENCE IS HITLERR!!!

I AM NOT the one making the absurd claims... the scientists are making the absurd claims, which I point out the absurdity by being absurd. If it's not directly from the scientists themsevles, it's from those that take the science and run with it, even where the science is based on flaws, fraud and fudging numbers.
[citation needed]

Why not just admit that global warming is about total shutdown of all industrial societies??? Or at least western societies... since the extremists don't seem to have qualms about Chinese pollution nearly as much as american... meanwhile in american factories there's such better standards that IF CO2 REALLY IS the big problem, moving stuff to china would ONLY serve to exacerbate the problem.

Because scientists want to drive cars too.
 
Last edited:
You posted charts of decreasing sea ice that "started" around 1970, but temperature started changing well before that.

Funny thing about that, as I noted in another thread most agree that until the 1970's said temperature change was driven almost entirely, if not entirely, by natural processes. Also, as I have noted, the warming trend really began centuries ago and became pronounced right at 1850, at least a decade or more before there was any notable increase in carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration. The process of deglaciation was also ongoing before 1850.

I'm not sure what it is that you think this proves. Yes, reflectivity of the earth's surface might influence temperature, but you haven't shown that link, only a weak-at-best correlation in the last couple decades.

There is no "might" about it. It is basic physics and not a single informed individual on either side would disagree that ice is more reflective than water or that the more light reflected the more light escapes and vice versa. Also ocean water does not just sit in one place or only influence one place. Warmer Arctic ocean water, brought on by more Arctic ice melting, means warmer air going down to other parts of the Earth and warmer water being circulated.

Glaciers started melting faster when the temperature rose faster. Wow, what a startling revelation. Can you show that they caused a change in temperature?

Actually, they were melting before the temperature rose. That is what I pointed out with my graphs in that post I mentioned.
 
If the wrongdoing were really so evident, you'd post direct quotes instead of just making stuff up. You haven't done that yet, I've noticed.

“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.” – Phil Jones

“Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean—but we’d still have to explain the land blip.” – Tom Wigley



“The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” – Kevin Trenberth

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
– Phil Jones

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no
longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...” – Michael Mann

“You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this.” – Phil Jones

“But that explanation certainly can't rectify why Keith's series, which has similar seasonality *and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil's series, differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil's does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on
(everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably
concensus[s ic ] viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series.” – Michael Mann

“We are not close to balancingthe energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”– Kevin Trenberth
“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go
through official AGU channels to get him ousted.” – Tom Wigley


Hopefully that's enough... that's about half of the more damning admissions... which were NOT hacked, the media held the data for some time before publishing, but rather was produced by a whistleblower... to multiple sources before it was finally brought to light.

Uhh. Trees grow faster during warmer years, so have thicker rings. This has been very well-established for a very long time. Long before anybody thought to use it as a temperature proxy. Ask those guys who grow tree farms to make paper.

CO2 Science
It's not as simple as you're saying... yes, the temperature is a factor, but CO2 levels are helpful in higher concentrations then atmospheric levels...

In fact it's at just more then double the current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 where plants grow at their peak efficiency, (for the temperature at the time), it MIGHT start becoming detrimental after that.

Your saying that they have been discredited doesn't make it true. I say they haven't. There, I just posted as much evidence as you have.
[citation needed]
solved.

So your evidence of deliberate deception is an article that has people saying it was a mistake. Ohhhkaaaayy...

Oh, you expect this person with big old grin to go to the media and say 'ya, I deliberately messed up the data cause 2350 was too far away and not enough of an impact'... come on. There was more to this story after it came out, I just wanted to illustrate the case of how the science has been flawed on so many levels that it's no longer science but scammers in lab coats.

Did you happen to notice the difference in slope of those temperature graphs? Compare the rate of temperature change today to the rate of temperature change... any time in the last 5000 years.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif[IMG]http://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/

This was Al Gore's famous graph 'corrected'...

[quote]Nature can handle the CO2 from animals (and people) breathing. It's part of the carbon cycle. Nature cannot absorb an extra 20 gigatons per year of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. You're being deliberately obtuse here. Standard conservatism: extrapolate the oppositions arguments to absurd extremes and attack [I]that.[/I][/quote]
1 - How do you figure 'the earth can't handle the extra' CO2?? You're completely underestimating the capacity of life to adjust to different circumstances... and if it IS a mass extinction event, it will be the 6th major extinction even in earths history.
2 - No, I know that the alarmists / extremists position of the church of climateology. You've alluded to the possibilities even in your attempt to discredit them... it's about de-industrialization, taxing life and control over humanity be 'deciding' what is green or not.

[quote]Yes. Nobody claimed the ocean would boil. A couple degrees in a short period is damaging. We're not going extinct, but crop yields might drop and animal life might suffer.[/quote]

Again, if temperatures are supposed to exponentially rise due to CO2... but again I was pointing out the absurd by being absurd.

How do you figure that?? I mean, so long as there's adequate precipitation among the other needs for good crop yields (not being a farmer), as long as the temperature does not exceed the needs of that crop... but again, there was a time where england was a wine producing country... so, where one crop type might suffer in one region, these crops could be moved to more northern regions and a different / more appropriate crop to replace...

[quote]Nobody has ever claimed that the danger in CO2 emissions was the toxicity. You're being deliberately obtuse again.[/quote]
EXACTLY!!! WHY DO WE CARE about a NON-toxic element when there is REAL DAMAGE caused by REAL toxic pollution???

[quote][citation needed][/quote]
Just because you're ignoring the newspaper articles on almost weekly basis of the ENTIRE global warming scam coming apart at the seams doesn't mean that it's not going on. Like I said, a google search 'pachauri admits' brought up 4 admissions of fraud on the FIRST PAGE OF THE SEARCH!!! That is 4 different cases of admissions of flaws or fraud. But also a refusal to resign...

[quote]Yes. If crazy catastrophic things happened, the CO2 wouldn't matter. If a planet-crushing asteroid hit us tomorrow, CO2 wouldn't matter. If God decided he was done with us and poofed the earth out of existence, CO2 wouldn't matter. [I]Why are you discussing absurd scenarios?[/I][/quote]

First, I was pointing out the extent that the suns energy DOES have an impact more then is implied in the science... SECOND I didn't say the heat would destroy the world... just that it would get hot.

further, this example serves to demonstrate how CO2 as a 'climate driver' is a complete fallacy on it's own merit. Yes, it might hold more heat, but it's not PUSHING the climate. There are larger factors at play.

[quote]So now it [I]was[/I] a mistake? Make up your mind.[/quote]
I was using the term 'mistake' loosely. But all criminals will call what they did a 'mistake' once they are caught... it just happens that this group has been caught, but nobody prosecuted, makes it a 'sensible' mistake.

[quote][citation needed][/quote]
Took care of that with the earlier admissions.

[quote][citation needed][/quote]
Umm... even with the titles you have enough for the searches... some of those books you'll have to pull from a library if you really care to see how sickening the people at the head of AGW "science" really are.

[quote]You're extrapolating to absurd degrees.[/quote]

Ok... how do you see the 'ultimate green solution'???
Solar panels and wind generators??? Because of energy loss through transmission these are NOT practical large scale options.
So, then you get back into carbon taxes and cap and trade, then further... the deindustrialization... if it's still 'warming' by then, what do you cut off next??

You see, 'human produced' co2, semantically INCLUDES human exhalation.

[quote]Salt is a vital nutrient. Therefore, more salt must be good for you, right?[/quote]

Right, within limits... BUT We're nowhere near limits like that... and honestly, the only real basis is the level at which toxicity would become a factor if we're using your analogy...

But let's use this analogy further... You're arguing 'ok, we're eating too much salt'... when the reality is we're still within 'normal' range... and I'm saying 'ok more important then the salt is the heavy metals, preservatives, and toxins that are being 'consumed'... and your'e saying 'no, you could eat mercury all day and that doesn't matter we gotta cut the salt'.

[quote]It also doesn't mean that you aren't. [/quote]

I don't have that good of an imagination to come up with some of this craziness.

[quote]Why not just go full Godwin? SCIENCE IS HITLERR!!![/quote]

No, of course science is not Hitler... BUT, all Hitler wanted to do was to bring about the best traits of humanity while weeding out the worst... so the mass murder of millions is for 'the greater good' of humanity. I mean, it absolutely is not by any stretch, but that's how things start to get justified... and the studies have proven it...

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/15/green-consumers-more-likely-steal]How going green may make you mean | Environment | The Guardian[/url]

[quote][citation needed][/quote]

Link ANY alarmist paper and I'll directly quote the absurdity that gets passed off as science.

[quote]Because scientists want to drive cars too.[/QUOTE]

In that case they want to be hypocrites. Like the study linked says.

BTW, Charlie manson also wants to help the earth by killing 50 million people...
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ0P1oI3Uvo&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Charles Manson the mind of Manson MSNBC special with Dan Abrams Rare Interview Clips part 1[/url]
 
Do you know the context of any of those emails you posted?
 
Do you know the context of any of those emails you posted?

Some of those are the entire emails, and so provide their own context...

Beyond that... how about YOU tell me a context where it's acceptable to discuss :
- Deleting information rather then providing to FOIA requests??
- "correcting" data to hide "blips"??
- using "tricks" to hide the decline?
- blacklisting journals that publish opposing viewpoints??
- debating tactics to circumvent FOIA requests?
- How to maintain 'consensus' in the face of opposing data??
- how to deal with the inability to 'balance the energy budget' that they cannot figure out??
- How to get skeptics ousted from the scientific community??

HONESTLY??? MAYBE 1 or 2 of those may have been discussed in a context that makes the comments acceptable... but come on... Don't let your 'faith' blind you from the facts.
 
Some of those are the entire emails, and so provide their own context...

Beyond that... how about YOU tell me a context where it's acceptable to discuss :
- Deleting information rather then providing to FOIA requests??
- "correcting" data to hide "blips"??
- using "tricks" to hide the decline?
- blacklisting journals that publish opposing viewpoints??
- debating tactics to circumvent FOIA requests?
- How to maintain 'consensus' in the face of opposing data??
- how to deal with the inability to 'balance the energy budget' that they cannot figure out??
- How to get skeptics ousted from the scientific community??

HONESTLY??? MAYBE 1 or 2 of those may have been discussed in a context that makes the comments acceptable... but come on... Don't let your 'faith' blind you from the facts.

- The FOIA requests were malicious. They were receiving 40 or 50 per day at one point, often the same duplicate request would be made many times over a few months.
- "Blips" sounds like erroneous data. Every scientific field has instances of bad data. Without more context, it's hard to call this conspiratorial data manipulation.
- "Trick" does not necessarily imply deception. Punch that word into any scientific journal. The results may surprise you. "Trick," in a scientific context, means something "neat" or "clever." Also, the decline was in a particular bad dataset: tree-ring temperature reconstructions in the high-northern latitudes and only in the last couple decades. Actual temperatures were rising at the time, not declining and then being hid by evil scientists.

The other day I figured out the trick to juggling

- They didn't "black list" those journals for "publishing opposing viewpoints." They stopped working with a journal for publishing obviously flawed papers.
- As above, malicious FOIA requests.
- The consensus issue was again referring to the tree-ring data. These concerns are well-published. If it were a big conspiracy, why publish the differences of opinion in a publicly available science journal?
- Trenberth published his concern about the energy balance. Other scientists disagreed with him, but your conspiracy nuts never bother to post the responses to that email of his. They also then published papers that showed that yes, we can in fact calculate for this. A published conspiracy again? Man these guys suck at deception!
- Have never heard this last one so can't really comment.
 
- The FOIA requests were malicious. They were receiving 40 or 50 per day at one point, often the same duplicate request would be made many times over a few months.

Yes, people wanting to see the data is 'malicious'... since they later discuss how to circumvent these requests, it's clear they were more interested in SECRECY then in malicious information seekers.

- "Blips" sounds like erroneous data. Every scientific field has instances of bad data. Without more context, it's hard to call this conspiratorial data manipulation.
- "Trick" does not necessarily imply deception. Punch that word into any scientific journal. The results may surprise you. "Trick," in a scientific context, means something "neat" or "clever." Also, the decline was in a particular bad dataset: tree-ring temperature reconstructions in the high-northern latitudes and only in the last couple decades. Actual temperatures were rising at the time, not declining and then being hid by evil scientists.

The other day I figured out the trick to juggling

These two are the ones that might be legitimate... THOUGH the 'bad data set' has been most all data since about 2000 when the climate levelled off and began cooling.

- They didn't "black list" those journals for "publishing opposing viewpoints." They stopped working with a journal for publishing obviously flawed papers.

Yes, flawed because it opposed their viewpoints... look at the wording used in the emails.

- As above, malicious FOIA requests.

What makes a FOIA request 'malicious' anyway?? That the person might use the raw data to disprove your theories?? That it might undermine 'consensus'?? That the actual raw data serves to prove a different outcome?? Because you are concealing something like fraud??

Good work stands on it's own merit, bad work needs to remain hidden.

- The consensus issue was again referring to the tree-ring data. These concerns are well-published. If it were a big conspiracy, why publish the differences of opinion in a publicly available science journal?

[citation needed]

- Trenberth published his concern about the energy balance. Other scientists disagreed with him, but your conspiracy nuts never bother to post the responses to that email of his. They also then published papers that showed that yes, we can in fact calculate for this. A published conspiracy again? Man these guys suck at deception!

[Citation needed]

Though, to be fair, looking over Tenberth's emails overall, I'd be just about willing to give this one benefit of doubt. However, this does NOT detract from the fact that these 'scientists ' at the CRU have not been following the scientific method.

- Have never heard this last one so can't really comment.[/QUOTE]

“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go
through official AGU channels to get him ousted.” – Tom Wigley

Really, there's no REAL WAY in a debate forum to discuss the intricacies of the thousands of emails and documents... but you can see some clear trends just browsing through randomly...

one of those is the clear objective, specifically from M MAnn, that he seems almost bent on ensuring that the 'science' is of value to 'policy makers'... think about that.

That' they are discussing these issues, and that someone, who was behind the scenes understood the violations of the rules of the scientific method (which in my understanding of a comparable nature to the judicial system concerning evidence and validity), and became so concerned that they gathered all these emails discreetly and published them... that's right, it was a whistleblower, not a hacker. You don't blow the whistle if everything is on the up and up.

YouTube - Lord Monckton on Climategate: Whistle Blower, Not A "Hacker"!
 
Here's your problem: you're only looking at the emails that were cherry-picked out by the skeptics. Look at the full conversations.

You're also wrong about the data. The warming trend has decelerated, but the world did not get colder in the 2000s. Also, you're still confusing proxy temperatures with instrumental temperatures. The "decline" was a decline in proxy-derived temperature, which does not match the instrumental record. The earth didn't get colder, but one set of trees in the high northern latitudes in recent decades says it did. The trees are wrong. There's still research ongoing as to why, the current best theory is that ozone depletion in those areas exposed the trees to more UV rays, IIRC, stunting their growth. There's a couple papers on that too.

Duplicate, repeated FOIA requests are malicious attempts to prevent scientists from doing work. If these were people just innocently wanting data, why send so many requests and why repeat requests?

Google "Trenberth 2009" Also, read the responses to Trenberth's e-mail. I assume you're looking at the full set of emails, rather than just the ones the skeptics give you.

Right?

Lord Monckton is a hack.
 
Last edited:
Here's your problem: you're only looking at the emails that were cherry-picked out by the skeptics. Look at the full conversations.

I had previously skimmed through SOME of the emails... there's literally THOUSANDS of them, so I don't expect ANYONE has gone through all of them unless they are doing it professionally or have nothing better to do.

You're also wrong about the data. The warming trend has decelerated, but the world did not get colder in the 2000s. Also, you're still confusing proxy temperatures with instrumental temperatures. The "decline" was a decline in proxy-derived temperature, which does not match the instrumental record. The earth didn't get colder, but one set of trees in the high northern latitudes in recent decades says it did. The trees are wrong. There's still research ongoing as to why, the current best theory is that ozone depletion in those areas exposed the trees to more UV rays, IIRC, stunting their growth. There's a couple papers on that too.

About the tree-ring data... and how these 'proxy derived' numbers were generated... As I pointed out earlier there are SEVERAL factors that come into play with tree growth... and yes, you're right... tree rings DO NOT make a good thermometer UNLESS you're able to know 100% the OTHER conditions at play in determining how a tree grows... if you are only using 1 or 2 data points (as the priests of climatology had used) then the equation is lacking... so lets say there's 5 variables at play, then to determine the factor that you want (temperature) you need AT LEAST 4 other variables and you need to know this data within a high level of accuracy. If you're only basing it on 1 or 2 of the growth factors, you're 'calculations' are really little better then a 'guess'.

Here's where the CRU has taken this 'temperature proxies' and they started realizing that even with these proxies they were generating different results. Even briffa (the day before the email that's now famous with the 'hide the decline' comment) comes out and says :
I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the temperature proxy data” but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of temperature proxies that come right up to today and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies) have some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.

I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.

In the following email exchanges Mann almost goes so far as to point out the obvious that the science is flawed, but passes the ball back to Briffa to resolve the 'problem' (since the data not corroborating to the theory was viewed as a 'problem' that needed fixing)... so, instead of coming up with a reason why the different groups data did not line up, instead he came up with a 'trick' to hide the decline... things like averaging data, and applying different arbitrary formulas to cause the datapoints to match up.

THIS IS the reality of the 'hide the decline'... so, how about we call it what it really is 'M. Mann-made global warming'??

The fact is that instead of using the actual data and noting the issues with the data as would be customary of any GOOD scientist, he simply exchanges the modified data with the raw data from 1981 onwards. The fact that Mann does this, ALONE, that's right... this one email, and the following one a month later, ALONE, should be enough to end M Mann's career as a scientist, possibly charged with scientific fraud, ANY science with his name on it be disregarded or independently re-verified (not from another shill at the IPCC, but a truly independent verification). What is worse, is that Phil Jones later brags about how he ADMIRES this 'trick' and has begun adopting it himself. So, that should be HIS career... but now this alone turns climate science into a VERITABLE conspiracy. It is now a conspiracy to commit scientific FRAUD!!!!!!!!!

No if's, and's buts about it.

Duplicate, repeated FOIA requests are malicious attempts to prevent scientists from doing work. If these were people just innocently wanting data, why send so many requests and why repeat requests?

Because they were trying to set the precedent that these requests be denied... again, as a scientist, why would you be ashamed of your data??

Google "Trenberth 2009" Also, read the responses to Trenberth's e-mail. I assume you're looking at the full set of emails, rather than just the ones the skeptics give you.

Right?

IMHO, after looking further into the emails, I don't believe that trenberth was the corrupt one in the bunch.

It seems that : M Mann and Phil Jones are the most corrupt, followed closely by Wigley, and Briffa seems to have just went along with this to get along with the real crooks... while others may have varying degrees of complicity I think it was just people trying to do good work.

Lord Monckton is a hack.

I might have agreed with you if he hadn't been vindicated in spades.

Look, I think it's a shame... but that's what happens when you give political and financial incentives to produce scienitific results. These scientists were motivated to provide 'alarmist' results BECAUSE then they would be further funded into the future.

The fact is that due to this corruption in the climate science field, we don't even know for certain if the climate today is hotter, cooler or the same as last year... also that these problems will NEVER be fixed until we ADMIT to ourselves that we've been conned by these people.

Ultimately, while there IS a segment of truth to the whole AGW concept, we don't even fully understand all the intricacies of the climate to be able to make predictions, but that the whole science team (seemingly) has in some form or another violated standard practices of the scientific method MEANS THAT the data is unrealiable, the studies are unreliable, the scientists are unreliable... we cannot trust ANYTHING that comes from this group because it's still the same people in there more then a year since these emails have come out.
 
The CRU has been vindicated "in spades" but you've conveniently ignored that.

Mann did not "invent global warming." That's absurd. Remember, he's working with trees. The thermometers show warming. (and birds. and glaciers. and crops...) Mann is a paleoclimatologist. This is what skeptics don't get about climategate: paleoclimatology is not at all important to the basic physical issue of carbon dioxide and infrared radiation. You could delete the entire work of the CRU and still not change the scientific picture significantly.

Things that happened 1000 years ago aren't all that important. Yes, changes in the earth's orbital mechanics sometimes cause an ice age, but those changes are not presently occurring. Rises in solar output can cause warming, but that hasn't happened in the last 50 years.

Despite already having it explained, you're still focusing on "trick." Tricks do not require deception. Buy a new dictionary.
 
The CRU has been vindicated "in spades" but you've conveniently ignored that.

No, they got global warming alarmists that have a stake in CO2 alarmism being 'proven real'... so they have not done so.

Mann did not "invent global warming." That's absurd. Remember, he's working with trees. The thermometers show warming. (and birds. and glaciers. and crops...) Mann is a paleoclimatologist. This is what skeptics don't get about climategate: paleoclimatology is not at all important to the basic physical issue of carbon dioxide and infrared radiation. You could delete the entire work of the CRU and still not change the scientific picture significantly.

Right, and when the facts started straying from his theories, he simply modified the data... he's admitted to it, Jones is adopted his algorithm... there's ZERO scientific integrity on this basis ALONE. Now, the physical capacity of CO2 to retain heat is undebateable... that is the 'grain of truth' to hide the lies. I didn't mean 'invent' in the sense that he invented the physical attributes of what I'm talking about. I meant he 'made' global warming by skewing the data to fit his theory... remember this is only 1 case, but the most glaring demonstration of his attitude. Since these two (Mann and Jones) are the heads of climate science, and they are issuing this corrupted data to provide to other scientific institutions world-wide... it's the greatest tragedy of science in the history of science.

Things that happened 1000 years ago aren't all that important. Yes, changes in the earth's orbital mechanics sometimes cause an ice age, but those changes are not presently occurring. Rises in solar output can cause warming, but that hasn't happened in the last 50 years.

Things that happened 1000 years ago aren't that important to today, BUT when you look at the past 1000 years, you'll find periods of comparable climate temperatures to recent times.

The earths rotation has a constant 'wobble'... the magnetic north pole varies as well on a constant basis, the first people to follow the compass north found that the magnetic north pole was constantly moving...I remember that tidbit from high school. So, it's not like there's drastic changes... unless you meant something larger like a polar shift... if that's actually happened, I doubt there were any humans around at the time.

Also, solar radiation has long and short cycles of activity... the short cycles are roughly 11 years. You showed a graph earlier that was correctly displaying this fact... but used it alongside scientifically invalidated climate data to show how the sun has no real impact on climate.

Despite already having it explained, you're still focusing on "trick." Tricks do not require deception. Buy a new dictionary.

Yes... I had to correct your perception of this 'trick'... focusing on the word 'trick' is one thing, that like you said can be any tactic to convert data or whatever, something clever. The problem comes from the previous DEFINING of this trick... which involves arbitrary modification of data, that data itself derived from BADLY FLAWED proxies, that don't COME CLOSE to the reality of tree growth... again, a grain of truth to hide the lies.
 
The instrumental temperature record is not "scientifically invalidated." Mann's group had absolutely nothing to do with the instrumental record. How many times do I have to tell you that? You seem to have no sense of the scope of these guys' work and no idea how their works relate with the rest of the evidence.

Also, one bad tree-ring dataset doesn't invalidate tree-ring data as a temperature proxy nor does it invalidate all the other methods of temperature reconstruction, and it certainly doesn't invalidate the instrumental record.

You make claims about fewer stations, but can you show evidence that the instrumental temperatures 100 years ago are not accurate? The last 50? 20?
 
Last edited:
The instrumental temperature record is not "scientifically invalidated."

Not through climategate... BUT
1 - The change from whitewash to latex paint alone can provide a different temperature reading of 0.8F
2 - 89% of "high quality" temperature reporting stations were close to or surrounded by artificial heat sources.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
Mann's group had absolutely nothing to do with the instrumental record. How many times do I have to tell you that? You seem to have no sense of the scope of these guys' work and no idea how their works relate with the rest of the evidence.

You don't seem to get that if you 'modify data' to suit your theories you ARE committing scientific fraud, in much the same way that tampering with evidence at a crime scene is also a criminal act.

Also, one bad tree-ring dataset doesn't invalidate tree-ring data as a temperature proxy nor does it invalidate all the other methods of temperature reconstruction, and it certainly doesn't invalidate the instrumental record.

BUT, Jones HAD ADOPTED this method of modifying data... he boasts about it in one of the emails.

ALso, it's not just 'one dataset'... it was two datasets (AT A MINIMUM) that conflicted, and rather then dealing with the inconsistencies and addressing them, the CRU committed scientific fraud and misled the whole world by stating the the case was absolutely concrete.

Now, I'm sure that tree-ring data COULD be used IF you account for the variables involved in trees growth rates... which represents numerous variables (heat, sunlight, CO2, water, soil nutrients, etc... off the top of my head) that means 5 variables that must be accounted for... or 4 variables to account for in order to determine that temperature... SO, if the CRU was using 2 of these variables to determine the temperature for the tree-rings... well, that's leaves you with about a 60% chance of a margin of error in your calculations.

You make claims about fewer stations, but can you show evidence that the instrumental temperatures 100 years ago are not accurate? The last 50? 20?

I don't think I claimed the fewer stations as a problem... and so long as the addition of new stations data is incorporated is noted in the findings, I don't see that there would be a huge problem...

The issues of potential 'contamination' of data seems to be a problem in more recent times. I couldn't prove that this potential contamination is deliberate, but it does seem at the least a bit careless decisions on behalf of the person / people planning the locations of these recording stations.

The thermometers themselves I'm quite certain are very accurate.
 
And as I've already discussed, the impact of these placement errors is barely even measurable because even when you run the reconstruction with the stations Watts lists as well-placed, the instrumental temperature record is nearly identical. These placement issues should be corrected for maximum accuracy, but Watts has failed to show that there's actually a significant impact of his accusations.

edit: and even that is without the help of the rest of the world's stations smoothing out things. Or are you telling me that urban encroachment is as serious an issue in Canada or Russia?
 
Last edited:
And as I've already discussed, the impact of these placement errors is barely even measurable because even when you run the reconstruction with the stations Watts lists as well-placed, the instrumental temperature record is nearly identical. These placement issues should be corrected for maximum accuracy, but Watts has failed to show that there's actually a significant impact of his accusations.

edit: and even that is without the help of the rest of the world's stations smoothing out things. Or are you telling me that urban encroachment is as serious an issue in Canada or Russia?

You obviously didn't read that report... the change from whitewash to latex paint ALONE acounts for a variation of up to 0.8F hotter readings.

When global warming gets catastrophic at 1.2F hotter (according to the self-proclaimed experts).

Umm.. if you are 'correcting placement issues' manually / arbitrarily.. that is fraud. It's no longer a measurement, but a GUESS.

I'm not even sure I NEED to continue going through the emails any longer... AGW alarmist is over.. it's a fraud. Toss out the scientists at the core of this issue and let's get some REAL science so we can figure out what the climate temperature is TODAY, nevermind these models that couldn't predict that a bird can fly.
 
If you can't understand the concept of global average temperatures then I'm not sure this is worth discussing with you anymore. For the last time, even just using the good stations gets you the same temperature reading. Part of what helps is that these readouts work with temperature anomaly rather than absolute temperature, so even a station that's consistently .5F warmer than it should be isn't going to throw off anything because they're measuring changes in temperature.

Also, the scope of these e-mails is so small you'd be retarded to think it invalidates the whole thing, even if they weren't grossly out of context. Tree-ring temperature proxies. I mean, seriously? You think the entirety of climate research banks on tree-rings? We didn't even figure out that you could use trees for that purpose until recently.
 
If you can't understand the concept of global average temperatures then I'm not sure this is worth discussing with you anymore. For the last time, even just using the good stations gets you the same temperature reading. Part of what helps is that these readouts work with temperature anomaly rather than absolute temperature, so even a station that's consistently .5F warmer than it should be isn't going to throw off anything because they're measuring changes in temperature.

Except that your neglecting that the sun's energy affects a given area differently depending on the time of day... SO, throughout the night the readings will be closer to accurate, and then as the sun rises it will start taking wrong temperatures... that difference gets larger until around midday...

Ok... 'global average'... 90% of 1 countries readings are reporting will show an inappropriate level of warming... that's not off to a good start. and then you promot guessing the numbers, you like the concept of modifying raw data to suit your theory... and then you say 'oh you just don't understand'... It's like this, if I see someone trying to see my car, there's nothing more to understand.

Also, the scope of these e-mails is so small you'd be retarded to think it invalidates the whole thing,

You don't understand the gravity of scientific fraud... this is the most extensive scientific fraud EVER in the history of science. Period. Children will be studying this fraud 50 years from now and how we very nearly signed our economies, our livelihoods, and for some even our lives themselves on the basis of this flawed science.

It's not just the CRU and 2 - 5 individuals that have made up some numbers... the CRU is the SOURCE for data going to the IPCC, the source data provided to other scientists around the world to come to their own conclusions... that's like saying a heart cancer is not a big deal...

even if they weren't grossly out of context.

Maybe SOME of what gets pointed out is taken mildly out of context, at a certain point when a person says : "I'm committing scientific fraud" (to quote the EFFECT of what he's suggesting) and then instead of having his co-conspirator say 'we cant do that' he says "great do it, and I'm going to start using your technique of fraud." AND THAT IS JUST from the first 5 emails... and that 'out of context' involves data going back from the 80s AT LEAST.

Tree-ring temperature proxies. I mean, seriously? You think the entirety of climate research banks on tree-rings? We didn't even figure out that you could use trees for that purpose until recently.

No, I knew that temperature was a FACTOR in tree growth and plant growth... BUT when you're only taking 2 factors when there's really 5-10... your data is a GUESS. Guesses are NOT scientific.

Those that were looking at the ice core data at least came to a real world based conclusion 'there seems to be 40 year, 400 year and 10000 year cycles in climate'... which is what I've been trying to explain... the earth is bigger then humanity. it doesn't care what trace gases we reclaim from the earth there are larger and more powerful cycles at play here, trace gases that are necessary to life anyway (even though you're going to claim that a plant can tell the difference between 'natural' and 'man-made' co2... when the reality is that man-made exhaust will also contain particulate of OTHER CHEMICALS... but ONLY CO2 matters so you'll neglect that anything else matters)

The worst part is you say that I'm too stupid to know... well, I CAN put 2 and 2 together, and realize that if we must 'massively drop CO2 levels to near zero' that you're talking about some people to stop breathing at some point... you're talking about selective deindustrialization "because scientists want to drive cars" - deuce there will be 'exceptions' to these 'green rules'... so you're talking about determining classes of humans... some will be able to enjoy the benefits of all our modern technologies, while the rest of people will be stuck as slaves on a plantation...

THen, you get those people that take it a notch further, and say simply 'humans are ruining the earth so lets start killing masses of people". (which, I've linked 2-3 of these neo-eugenicists, but I've come across about 4-5 MORE of them that advocate deindustrialisation and / or mass murder to fix the problems)

Oh, ya... was it also 'out of context' that Shell is FUNDING the CRU by doing them favors like building them a science facility? (your famous claim that oil companies hate global warming)... that BP calls themselves 'beyond petroleum'... and are HUGE promoters of AGW and working towards solutions.

Bottom line -
Science : There's the GRAIN of truth, but smothered in lies and distortions (admitted not inferred)
Politicaly : They don't use the 'science' they use the policy reports which are made BEFORE the science comes out... and the science is made to match the policy reports.

It's like rat poison : It consists 90% good food. Something a rat would like to eat, so they eat it and it tastes a little funny, but they carry on and then a few days later they are dead.

You call me too stupid... but the fact is I'm too street smart to buy into this scam.
 
The CRU did not create the instrumental record. It's obvious that you don't understand who works with what data, or anything about the context of the emails. I'm done with the conspiracy derail in this thread. Please start another where you show some evidence of conspiracy, and I'll respond there.

edit: And this absurdity about people breathing is my very favorite skeptic straw mountain. If you think your position is so solid, why are you coming up with such ridiculous arguments? And where on earth did you get the idea that I'm only concerned with CO2 emissions and not anything else? That's just plain stupid. Slavery? What? Seriously, get the **** out of my thread.
 
Last edited:
The CRU did not create the instrumental record. It's obvious that you don't understand who works with what data, or anything about the context of the emails. I'm done with the conspiracy derail in this thread. Please start another where you show some evidence of conspiracy, and I'll respond there.

Ok, fine... but I also demonstrated how the data collection is flawed, and they are not even following their own guidelines...
I've shown :
1 - Tree-ring data = false, flawed and fraudulent
2 - instrument data = corrupted data through artificial heat sources that requires arbitrary 'correction' at 89% of the installations in the US alone.

And you're carrying on about how I DON"T UNDERSTAND A FRAUD WHEN IT"S IN FRONT OF MY FACE. What else is there??

You claimed a certain context for the emails, (in one case I gave benefit of doubt), I then showed how it was actually exactly the context that I claimed... you can't accept that. The REAL context of the 'hide the decline' involves an artificial and baseless algorithm being placed on the tree-ring data so that their analysis fits... what other word then fraud applies here??? SERIOUSLY???

I know it hurts to realize when you've been conned...

edit: And this absurdity about people breathing is my very favorite skeptic straw mountain. If you think your position is so solid, why are you coming up with such ridiculous arguments?

Because you inhale O2, and your lungs use that O2 and puts out CO2... Plants take that CO2 and turn it back to O2... It's the logical conclusion that IF CO2 is THE environmental concern... then the real concern is too many people breathing. Ok, why are we not talking about heavy metal waste getting dumped in waterways?? Why aren't we talking about toxic herbicides and pesticides being sprayed excessively?? Why aren't we talking about fish and frogs that are living in such toxic water that most of them are becoming hemaphroditic (both sexes)???

No, we're talking ONLY about CO2... that's the devil.

I know you can't possibly accept the fact that there's a GRAIN of truth behind AGW hypothesis... just a grain... The REAL science shows that it's hardly detrimental, and up to a certain threshold is actually BENEFICIAL. (Like how greenhouses use artificial heat, light, and CO2 concentrations to grow plants more efficiently then can be done in open air... CO2 concentrations around 1000ppm is when plants will grow at a peak efficiency)

And where on earth did you get the idea that I'm only concerned with CO2 emissions and not anything else?

Because anytime I bring up anything else, you and anyone that actually believes this con-game, says to the effect 'that's not important because CO2....'. And won't look at anything else that is an ACTUAL pollutant that's released at the same time :
- CO and CO2
- Methane
- Benzene (known carcinogen)
- nitrogen oxides (the causes of smog)
- Sulfur dioxides (causes of acid rain)
- ozone
- Particulate matter
- Dioxins
- CFC's

So, instead of saying 'ok, we need to come up with methods and fuels that burn more cleanly and efficiently' we hear 'we need to stop CO2'

That's just plain stupid. Slavery? What? Seriously, get the **** out of my thread.

You are only looking at this up to the tip of your nose... look at the UN's statements on the subject (agenda 21, biological diversity studies), the IPCC's statements, what the proponents of AGW are saying (al gore, Bill gates, Ted Turner, Obama's science czar, etc)... where they take the grain of truth that a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere will have cause a modest increase in the atmospheric temperatures above what it would be if the CO2 was simply at a 'natural' level...

The only reality is that the climate is ALWAYS going to change... there's NO WAY to maintain the earth at any specific climate. We DON"T UNDERSTAND the intricacies of the climate... remember 30-40 years ago where we had the same propaganda except the climate was COOLING???

Honestly, the CO2 levels FOLLOW the increases in climate... that was proven by the ice core samples, the same graph that Al gore uses in his movie is cleverly drawn in such a way to demonstrate that it's the opposite... is the same graph that proves this to be the case.

SO, as I've said earlier... mans impact on the overall climate is somewhere between negligible and non-existent.

As for proof of conspiracy... I've already linked to you a number of books... I think the oldest I linked was 'limits to growth', that discusses at parts how to use environmental crisis for political gain. Then 'the first global revolution' where they determine that issues like global warming can be used to instate a global tax, and how this would be used for a depopulation agenda...

I also linked a number of Time Magazine articles... actually, maybe that was another thread, but 'the case for killing granny', 'the only-child myth', among others that add in the 'good for the earth' argument alongside other arguments...

So, yes... AGW theory is an anti-human, anti-industry, anti-growth movement... I'm sorry truth hurts, but you won't look into it, so I'll let you carry on with your delusions that CO2 is going to destroy the world, boil the oceans, and whatever other prediction based on flawed or fraudulent data these models come up with (even though, like with the 'hockey stick' where you could put ANY data into the software and it would come up with a 'hockey stick' graph).

I noted earlier that I thought you were here to discuss the scientific facts, but it's become pretty clear that you're just pushing this extremist propaganda.... so I'll leave you to it.
 
You can make up all the crap you want about boiling oceans but science does not propose such an outcome, and nobody ever claimed we can maintain a particular climate against the natural shifts, nor does any scientist propose some ****ing slavery bull**** or whatever you're making up today. No, sorry, you don't get to try and play the reasonable card when you make such accusations. Nice talking with you, but when you just make up arguments and assign them to your opposition, that's not a debate.
 
Last edited:
You can make up all the crap you want about boiling oceans but science does not propose such an outcome,

I know that, I'm just illustrating the absurdity that Co2's influence on climate is infinite, which is the allusions made by the AGW alarmist proponents.

and nobody ever claimed we can maintain a particular climate against the natural shifts

No, just that ANY change in climate is man-made. If it's not stated directly, it can be inferred by the statements of the scientists and proponents.

, nor does any scientist propose some ****ing slavery bull**** or whatever you're making up today.

read the ****ING BOOKS... I DO NOT WRITE time magazine articles... I don't write club of rome documents, I didn't make an inconvenient truth. I'm NOT MAKING ANY OF THAT UP. Read agenda 21. Read the biological diversity study... ok, those are the UN proposals... NOT MINE. Hell, read the UN's charter of human rights... that's what a 'global system for the earth' will bring.

Of course you won't read those... It's so much easier to call me crazy for pointing it out, then pointing out how psychopathic the AGW agenda REALLY is.

No, sorry, you don't get to try and play the reasonable card when you make such accusations.

It's not 'accusations' that I'm making, it's admissions that you won't look into...

Ok, think about this :
- By ONLY focusing on CO2... (which you claim you don't think it's the only problem, but even you have yet to even MENTION a secondary problem, which furthers my point that this is all the AGW extremists care about) we could say, ok, we need to lower CO2 production by X%... but we don't know how much impact X% will have on the environment because there's no scientific basis... just conmen in labcoats words for it... but then, what happens as that's not enough??

- look at the actual proposals to counter AGW : It boils down to carbon taxes or 'cap and trade'... who benefits from this?? Al Gore for one. Does it actually lower any CO2 emissions?? Is there going to be the distinction between 'human produced' and 'human exhalation' CO2??? How do will they measure each individuals allotment?? Who will take care of this taxing system?? The IMF?? The World bank?? The UN?? None of these organizations have very good track records.

- Further down the line, say we've reduced CO2 by X% and the scientists, because continued fear mongering is the only way they continue to get research grants... well, looks like we gotta shut off industries. No further jobs, no further cars...

- Further down, it's still not enough, well, we're going to have to start capping and trading human exhaled CO2...

Now, the sad part of this, is that this isn't much of MY OPINION, even though you'll accuse me of it... I gave you a number of prominent people, books they've written, documents, etc... where you can see this information for youself if you cared to look... but you think it's all nice and fuzzy.

An alternative to the new wave of ecofascism | Micah White | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Here's the scientist saying it : We may need to put democracy on hold for a while. Do you want a gentle fascism where you do what we say or do you want an iron fisted fascism to fix the problem??

Nice talking with you, but when you just make up arguments and assign them to your opposition, that's not a debate.

No, I'm not 'making up arguments'... I'm logically extending your arguments to point out how absurd and demonic these suggestions really are.

But you won't read the books written by those that originally came out and created the IPCC... but that's ok.

If the science wasn't being used by policy makers, which then gets trumpeted by the media, and enforced by tyranical activists... well, maybe we could have a sensible discussion... but like every time, scratch the surface of any alarmist and you see what they REALLY stand for... and it's NOTHING to do with the environment. Or else you'd have taken my challenge long ago to discuss REAL pollution.
 
You're not logically extending, you're absurdly extrapolating and you know it. It's standard conservative "debate" tactics.

Conservatives like smaller governments, therefore they must also really like NO government. Total anarchy, like some places in Africa! I'm just logically extending their opinions!

The moment you used the word "plantation" you outed yourself as a blindly partisan nutjob. I suppose you also think Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim Socialist Terrorist?
 
You're not logically extending, you're absurdly extrapolating and you know it. It's standard conservative "debate" tactics.

Except that I'm not conservative, nor am I liberal... in ways I am pushing things to the absurd to make a point, but by 'extrapolating'... its' alot less then you realize.

Conservatives like smaller governments, therefore they must also really like NO government. Total anarchy, like some places in Africa! I'm just logically extending their opinions!

Well, not really because a 'small government' does not LEAD to no government (short of the system falling apart), not in the same way that a big government almost always leads to a leader of that government becoming corrupt and pushing that corruption to the limit...

A better example of 'logical extension' would be that the use of credit / debit cards. Once everyone is using credit / debit, there becomes less and less need for cash and so eventually the cash would be eliminated as an option... That's a much more benign logical extension.

Or, back up when the first vehicles were invented, people may have considered it a stretch that this would completely replace horses for travel.

The moment you used the word "plantation" you outed yourself as a blindly partisan nutjob. I suppose you also think Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim Socialist Terrorist?

Not quite sure how the word 'plantation' carries so much meaning in that sense, but had I known, I'd have chosen a different word,

Secret - On secrecy, he promised to be the most transparent president ever, but his first act as president was to seal all of his records.
Kenyan - I kinda doubt it... but the village is proud to call itself Obama's birthplace.
Socialist - No, because Obama is merging the public and private sectors (like with the auto industry, banking industry, farming industry (in congress), health care, etc..), so he's actually much closer to the definition of fascist then socialist...
Terrorist - No, Rahm Emmanuel is the son of a known terrorist, but I couldn't make the claim about Obama (except he did recently talk about how the US COULD absorb another terrorist attack, not sure what that's supposed to mean though)
 
I think poster 'Anthony Miller' should see this string. (thx Deuce)
Perhaps even checkd pg 2 beforte posting his "GW is BS" one.
Others apparently are in denial or ignorance of the basics.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom