hahahahaha *pause* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,912
Here you go..... happy reading.

Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

And I will read them, thanks for the link. If it turns out that this group has really gone down the wrong path legally and ethically then they should get whatever punishment is warranted under the law and from the rest of the community.

From the link that you gave:

"Worryingly this same group of scientists are very influential in terms of economic and social policy formation around the subject of climate change."

Right here is a huge red flag.

As I have stated many times before. Scientists have no business being involved in policy formation. From the moment that they decide to enter that arena, they are no longer fact finders but in essence become themselves a special interests lobby.
 

gibiphone

Senior Member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
180
As I have stated many times before. Scientists have no business being involved in policy formation. From the moment that they decide to enter that arena, they are no longer fact finders but in essence become themselves a special interests lobby.
Right on bro!! Well said. I will take that a step further and say neither entertainers (of any type), nor newsreaders nor athletes nor anyone else who is enjoying his/her 15 minutes of fame should be accorded any bigger say on the political stage than joe the ragman, or sam the taxidriver.
 

Hamtone

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
12,594
Reaction score
6,172
Right on bro!! Well said. I will take that a step further and say neither entertainers (of any type), nor newsreaders nor athletes nor anyone else who is enjoying his/her 15 minutes of fame should be accorded any bigger say on the political stage than joe the ragman, or sam the taxidriver.
Unfortunately we ar ein a world of star fkrs, who feel as though if you throw a ball or cry on tv you must be better than the general public. People are really whack


This is why I despise bono so much, play your music and stfu
 

Scooter2112

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
19,275
Reaction score
21,430
The few that I read seemed to indicate that warming trends would mostly be due to solar activity. Radiant heat, not convection. (Warming at the surface but not the upper atmosphere, warming not found at the polar regions, warming timeline occurs at night, not during the day, etc..)
 

Hamtone

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
12,594
Reaction score
6,172
what I dont get is, what is there to gain from their position? Ok so if global warming blah blah blah, this does what?

I do however have to say that we as human (namely china India) need to cut their smog
 

kernelofwisdom

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
292
The few that I read seemed to indicate that warming trends would mostly be due to solar activity. Radiant heat, not convection. (Warming at the surface but not the upper atmosphere, warming not found at the polar regions, warming timeline occurs at night, not during the day, etc..)
Wrong. The Goracle recently announced that the core of the earth is roughly the same temperature as the sun. With a temperature of a few millions degrees (plus or minus a few million), it's no wonder we have to run the AC in our SUV's! :laugh2:
 

gibiphone

Senior Member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
180
Nuclear power regains support
TOOL AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
Even green groups see it as 'part of the answer'

The worm has turned, as ole' Shakey said. hahahahaha *pause* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

washingtonpost.com
 

Scooter2112

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
19,275
Reaction score
21,430
what I dont get is, what is there to gain from their position? Ok so if global warming blah blah blah, this does what?

I do however have to say that we as human (namely china India) need to cut their smog
Research and grant funding, ground level investment in "green" technologies, global control of the means of manufacturing, job losses in the US and other first world countries, increased class warfare. The question is.... what's the upside?

EVERYONE wants less smog. It's not exclusive to one belief. It's kinda like the misconception that hunters hate wildlife. Quite the contrary... their tag dollars fund habitat, park systems, etc.
 

Hamtone

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
12,594
Reaction score
6,172
So how do we verify any of the accounts?> The Washington times isn't exactly a brand name news out let, not that I am aware of.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,912
The problem almost always lies with extremist views. Those that believe the sky is falling and those that believe that nothing at all is happening, 'it's all a hoax'. They are two sides of the same coin. They are both equally wrong.

There is more than enough evidence to show that humanities impact on the global ecology is major. There is enough evidence to show that we have an effect on our climate as well. The issue is how much of an effect can be attributed to our actions, and this is the question that is being investigated and debated by reasonable scientists.

The hacked emails are both a blessing and a curse. The blessing is that it may 'out' the extremists in this research and return sensibility to the topic. The curse is that those who are ardently opposed to AGW will feel falsely vindicated in their beliefs, and call for an end to the research necessary to answer the questions that still remain, and they are important questions for all of us.

Hopefully we will be smart enough not to give in to the reactionary backlash that is surely coming. That would not be in anybody's best interest.

EDIT:

Something for those that believe that Climate Change is a hoax:

"Sallie Baliunas, John Christy,
Christopher de Freitas, David Legates, Anthony R. Lupo,
Patrick Michaels, Joel Schwartz, and Roy Spencer are
scientists involved in research and/or instruction in climate
and related sciences at major universities, intellectual
institutions, and federal laboratories. Collectively, they have
authored hundreds of articles in the refereed scientific
literature, books, book chapters, and other publications on
climate and climate change."

The names listed above in bold text 'Baliunas and Christy' are the researchers who authored a comprehensive review of global temperature data that is often cited by the AGW Hoax promoters. De Freitas, is the editor of the journal 'Climate Research', which published 'Baliunas and Christy's contraversial paper, which led to the resignations of half the editors on staff of Climate Research.

The State of Massachusetts sued the US EPA in Federal Court to stop the EPA's CO2 emissions regulations. This case was eventually reviewed by the US Supreme Court in 2005. The authors in the quoted text supplied an Amici Curiae brief to this case, supporting the state of Massachusetts.

The authors who wrote the brief arguing against CO2 regulation via the EPA conceeded this:

"Climate Change Science assessed the science
holistically and concluded that human-caused climate
change had most likely already occurred and that
serious future damage was highly probable (p. 21).

"Given that 1.8°C is a more plausible projection of
warming over the next century, because it reconciles models
and observations, it is difficult to defend the notion that
carbon dioxide is a pollutant requiring immediate
remediation under the Clean Air Act."

(which I agree with...)

"The CS Brief correctly states that “the basic physics
underlying the greenhouse effect is firmly established” (p.
11). There is no controversy about this, and the
climatologists and scientists involved in the instant brief do
not dispute it."

"The notion that greenhouse gas emissions, mainly of
carbon dioxide, contribute to climate change is not in dispute.
But the CS Brief goes on to claim that “human activities
likely caused most of the approximately 0.6°C rise over the
20th century” (p. 12, emphasis added). This is scientifically
wrong.

"As evidence for warming, the CS Brief claims that
mean ocean temperature rose by 0.05ºC from 1955 to 1998.
(p. 12). The actual increase is 0.037°C through 1998.22 A
more recent paper by Lyman, et al. shows that, in slightly
more than two years, the world’s oceans actually lost 20% of
the heat that they had gained from greenhouse gas changes
in the last 50 years.23 There is no accepted explanation for
this behavior. It, like other observed factors, indicates how

much is still unknown in climate science."

* which is my whole point. There is still much to discover.


No. 05-1120

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES



COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al.,


Petitioners,
v.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.,
Respondents.
On Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit

AMICI CURIAE


BRIEF OF CLIMATOLOGISTS
AND SCIENTISTS SALLIE BALIUNAS, JOHN R.
CHRISTY, CHRIS DE FREITAS, DAVID LEGATES,
ANTHONY LUPO, PATRICK MICHAELS, JOEL
SCHWARTZ, AND ROY W. SPENCER IN SUPPORT
OF RESPONDENTS
http://cei.org/pdf/5572.pdf

 

Hamtone

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
12,594
Reaction score
6,172
One thing I have always thought was funny is this:

We had a mini ice age from like 1200ad to 1780 or 1800. and I would not imagine that it would end abruptly.

I do however agree that our (humans) impact on the world has been negative. We need the green plants and so on to clean our air and bring us fresh O, it is a balancing act for sure.
 

Scooter2112

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
19,275
Reaction score
21,430
I do however agree that our (humans) impact on the world has been negative. We need the green plants and so on to clean our air and bring us fresh O, it is a balancing act for sure.
You're aware how the "plains states" came into being aren't you? The indians burned the forests to make hunting for bison easier back in the day. We have more trees in this day and age than we had hundreds of years ago. Modern society is not always a negative factor.
 

PraXis

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
24,917
Reaction score
24,384
These emails are an absolute blessing. The House has already passed a giant tax bill based on this BS. OwlGore is out promoting his new BS book (no 11 AP reporters assigned to "fact check"?). Copenhagen is going to have a BS summit to see how to steal more money from us.

If they want to talk about long-term energy solutions, fine..just leave every politician out of it. If they want to enact punishing legislation, during a deep recession, based on an absolute NON-consensus, then NO! These idiots manipulated data to get their gov't funding. I'm shocked SHOCKED.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,912
You're aware how the "plains states" came into being aren't you? The indians burned the forests to make hunting for bison easier back in the day. We have more trees in this day and age than we had hundreds of years ago. Modern society is not always a negative factor.
Never heard that one before. Most of the species of plants that comprise the prairie lands can be traced back to the late Pleistocene (million years ago). There is plenty of evidence that the great plains have existed as is, as a dry steppe grassland environment for a long time.

Maybe you can point me to different findings?

I agree Modern Society's impact isn't allways negative.
 

Hamtone

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
12,594
Reaction score
6,172
These emails are an absolute blessing. The House has already passed a giant tax bill based on this BS. OwlGore is out promoting his new BS book (no 11 AP reporters assigned to "fact check"?). Copenhagen is going to have a BS summit to see how to steal more money from us.

If they want to talk about long-term energy solutions, fine..just leave every politician out of it. If they want to enact punishing legislation, during a deep recession, based on an absolute NON-consensus, then NO! These idiots manipulated data to get their gov't funding. I'm shocked SHOCKED.
Funding for what? What is the end game overall? Not being sarcastic at all, I just dont see what the upside in doing this is. A short con always fails, its the long con that will win, this is a short con
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,912
Funding for what? What is the end game overall? Not being sarcastic at all, I just dont see what the upside in doing this is. A short con always fails, its the long con that will win, this is a short con
True, and it was done by a small but influential group unfortunately. The CRU was established in 2005.
 

PraXis

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
24,917
Reaction score
24,384
This is not a short con at all. The entire purpose of this hoax is control, just like the health care "reform" being currently debated. They want to control everything about your life, your actions, your energy usage, your BS carbon footprint.

As usual, only one network covered this hoax.

Imagine if some a conservative cause was found to be a huge hoax after finding proof that data was manipulated.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,912
This is not a short con at all. The entire purpose of this hoax is control, just like the health care "reform" being currently debated. They want to control everything about your life, your actions, your energy usage, your BS carbon footprint.

As usual, only one network covered this hoax.

Imagine if some a conservative cause was found to be a huge hoax after finding proof that data was manipulated.
So all of the scientists of the world since the 1970's have grouped together and decided to take control of the world?

Do you hear yourself???????????
 




Top