[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Does anyone still believe this hoax?
So sad.[/quote]
The Lord will show them gun-fearin’ commies the error of them ways!
Okay, then tell us how the ice free areas of the Arctic came about? global warming? in 1822? 1922? the climate has changed and changed a lot. All of this preceded any human activity.
As to the defense of Mick. He has cited a number of studies. They carry provisos with them regarding what can be known. They fail to meet the most basic requirements (sea levels) that he insists are needed. Remember the endless demands for GLOBAL figures. Strange the silence when it comes to sea level measurements and then again all those thermometers all those readings… not a bit spoiled by environmental factors, eh?
The nails are being driven into the coffin but I suspect that there will be a new environmental crisis to rise up again to draw the hearts and minds of the well meaning. AFter all, do we not now have environmentalists who were willing to die to stop nuclear power demanding it to reduce greenhouse gases? Ironic no? Remember that many of us questioned the hype regarding the dangers of nuclear power but we were then nothing but tools of the nuke industry or unenlightened. Oh how the arguments change, eh? Smirk. Smirk. SMIRK.
I dunno…it was hot as HELL here today Fred.
Perhaps, then you need to reflect upon your moral behavior? All I am saying is that you may no longer be on the earth… just a thought…
I would have thought you’d be more subdued given the crude awakening you are getting in the gulf. Oh well. They are using a lot of “dispersant” to control the problem, though the term might be something of a euphamism as it doesn’t actually “disperse” so much as “cause to sink.” Like the feeling I get reading your posts. Just think, all that goo sinking to the bottom of the ocean. The should call it fred smithant.
[quote=“fred smith”]Mick:
Earthquakes? volcanoes? global warming? are you suggesting a connection between the same? [/quote]
Well, its not so much me making the suggestion, if you had read Icons posts, scientists are making the connection. Which, on the surface makes sense. Shift a few trillion tons of weight from one point to somewhere else, perhaps tectonic plates move, earthquakes and magma are released, blah blah blah.
Science has a broad spectrum of views, in regard global warming, the vast majority go along with IPCC, NASA and CRU. Papers exists with much worse scenarios, some suggest much less severe. So where to place your views on global warming? Actually its quite simple, your views dont exist anywhere in a scientific sense. More appropriate is the Lord Monckton group who just make facts up, or Sarah Palin who seems to be the Antichrist incarnate.
So since we are unlikely to have anything resembling scientific discussion on the subject of global warming with you, and because you wish to look at this from the “political” rather than based on any facts. I thought I would look up Sarah Palin on the Urban dictionary, just for you, to get a feel for how rational people view politicians who are so obviously in the pocket of corporations and twisted by ideology. They use a system of voting up the best description and this is currently number one.
[quote] Heinous bitch who only got elected because she sucked McCain’s dick.
That fatherfucker is such a Sarah Palin that I bet she gets it on with politicians to save face. Or to moisturize face.[/quote]
This actually seemed quite a good description, but a couple of others caught my eye. Such as entry number 12 describing Sarah Palin as
[quote]The incredibly unconfortable feeling of having excrement pushed back up your colon with a rough wood plunger.
Man this country is about to get a Sarah Palin for the next four years![/quote]
But I see true potential in entry number 30, (this might be the true Urban Dictionary definition one day).
[quote]A totalitarian, homophobic, white trash, delusional, anti-science, wench who believes being within viewing distance of Russia qualifies the bitch to be the big cheese of America.
Sarah Palin is a cunt.[/quote]
[quote=“fred smith”]Okay, then tell us how the ice free areas of the Arctic came about? global warming? in 1822? 1922? the climate has changed and changed a lot. All of this preceded any human activity.
As to the defense of Mick. He has cited a number of studies. They carry provisos with them regarding what can be known. They fail to meet the most basic requirements (sea levels) that he insists are needed. Remember the endless demands for GLOBAL figures. Strange the silence when it comes to sea level measurements and then again all those thermometers all those readings… not a bit spoiled by environmental factors, eh?
The nails are being driven into the coffin but I suspect that there will be a new environmental crisis to rise up again to draw the hearts and minds of the well meaning. AFter all, do we not now have environmentalists who were willing to die to stop nuclear power demanding it to reduce greenhouse gases? Ironic no? Remember that many of us questioned the hype regarding the dangers of nuclear power but we were then nothing but tools of the nuke industry or unenlightened. Oh how the arguments change, eh? Smirk. Smirk. SMIRK.[/quote]
So, earlier you argued or admited that the sea level studies were incomplete, and now you are using the metaphor of a nail in a coffin. That’s ridiculously inconsistent. You do know that science requires an attempt at consistency, don’t you?
A new report from the National Research Council.
www8.nationalacademies.org/onpin … D=05192010
Just to further make the case against AGW being a fallacy or pseudo science.
[quote]The compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence, says Advancing the Science of Climate Change, one of the new reports. While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never “closed,” the report emphasizes that multiple lines of evidence support scientific understanding of climate change. The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems,” the report concludes.[/quote]
That’s Fred’s science: the donkey’s head causes its tail. So those 3 events alone should lead you to conclude/confirm your position? lol.
what about loss of glaciers around the world? Greenland, Himalayas? These things take thousands, tens, to form. There’s no hundred year trends here. Regardless, I recall that Fred already conceded there IS global warming - he just denies that it’s caused by humans. what’s there to talk about?
Oh dear. Jack Burton has not been keeping up. Remember all the discussion of Himalayan glaciers? Oh dear, Jack… better read up on the thread before posting… that’s all I am saying…
scientific consistency? or scientific proof? In science, there is or there is not. Sorry, but we are laughing at you.
[quote=“fred smith”]Oh dear. Jack Burton has not been keeping up. Remember all the discussion of Himalayan glaciers? Oh dear, Jack… better read up on the thread before posting… that’s all I am saying…
scientific consistency? or scientific proof? In science, there is or there is not. Sorry, but we are laughing at you.[/quote]
I’m inclined to believe you on this one, Fred. This bout of global warming must just be another natural cycle rather than a man-made phenomenon. I don’t arrive at that conclusion because I know the first thing about climatology though because I don’t. I’m going with you on this one because it’s just not possible for someone to be wrong all the time about everything. Nobody is that perfect.
[quote]Today we learn that all supporting data for world-wide global warming (or climate change) has been destroyed by the guardians of that data. University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) claims to only keep “value added data”, data that they have modified.
All historic “raw” data from temperature measurement stations around the world has been destroyed! This makes it impossible for anyone to verify whether global warming is real or not (so much for peer review). In light of ClimateGate emails that have surfaced admitting to hiding, destroying, and modifying data it is no longer possible to believe anything coming out of that office or based off of their “value added” data. Most of the conclusions from the IPCC have their roots in this CRU data. The Mann hockey stick (which is also involved in ClimateGate – see below) bases the hockey stick curve upward on CRU data.
Anyone still believing that our climate scientists are impartial and that we have any accurate climate data must be a fool. Though there are undoubtedly honest climate scientists (and we really feel sorry for them right now) most of their work is based off invalidated data. Not only has the public been made fools of but so have the honest scientists.
Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
----- Times Online, Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor[/quote]
Consider the following Press Release from the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU):
”Conclusive proof that polar warming is being caused by humans”
Thu, 30 Oct 2008
New research by the University of East Anglia has demonstrated for the first time that human activity is responsible for significant warming in both polar regions.
The findings by a team of scientists led by UEA’s Climatic Research Unit will be published online by the Nature Geoscience this week.
Now consider the following quotes.
From Michael E. Mann (of Hockey Stick fame) about withholding data:
Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.
Nick McKay about modifying the data (“author” here is Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit fame):
the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember
Then there is CRU’s Phil Jones quote about hiding the declining temperatures:
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.
From Michael Mann (truth doesn’t matter):
As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.
From Phil Jones telling other scientists to delete data:
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! … The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
Phil Jones again trying to hide from FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) laws:
If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.
Phil Jones (CRU) to Michael Mann (of Hockey Stick fame):
“Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”
And now we’re told that the original raw data is gone forever and that we’re suppose to trust their “value added” data. How convenient.
Sorry but could you give me an exact cut and post with a quote on that “evidence?” Yes, thanks, much appreciated.
Anyone read today’s Telegraph on the collapse in UK regarding how serious of a threat global warming or climate change is as opposed to those who now view the matter as being excessively hyped? Ironic, given that the news coverage has been very sympathetic for so very long regarding the matter. What is to account for this loss of “faith” in the new “religion?” Perhaps, a failure to produce “miracles?” but at least you will continue to have the polar bears as a symbol/mascot. Smirk. BIG smirk.
Sure. Don’t forget all the evidence in the series of posts starting [url=Nicotine and AGW: 'teach the controversy' - #3 by Fortigurn You’ve been directed to that thread several times, but you’ve never replied to it.
I am sorry but you must have misunderstood me. You have supplied me to a link that provides all sorts of “information.” I was hoping that you might single this out to provide a direct cut and paste of the relevent sections that proved your point. Back to you.
And gosh … look at this…
smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ … -ow3p.html
So what pray tell are we marching for THIS week?
I’m sorry, but I gave you a link to a series of posts in which I had already provided direct copy/pastes doing exactly that. I apologize if this confused you.
Fortigurn:
Well, so well you should apologize. I guess a quick look through your cited site meant that not even you could find the evidence that you thought you had so hence no cut and paste for our convenience. Ah well, then…