Research Discussion: Re: Climate Change ... A Scam

Re: Climate Change ... A Scam
Posts: 21

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Nightcrawler
2009-11-24 14:31:50 EST
Anyone that has followed the global warming debate, closely, and is privy to the efforts
of the many, knows that
the few have held center stage concerning this debate. I find it humorous that the few
are now being exposed
for the frauds that they are, and that their methods are not only fraudulent, but
borderline criminal when the full
scope of their effort is exposed as the despotic scheme that it really is. Since the late
eighties I've been against
all of these fools and shall relish each and every one of these individuals suffering the
slings and arrows of scorn,
and, hopefully, much worse.

NC

***************

Begin quote:
21 Nov 09 - One of the world's leading climate change research centers has been accused of
manipulating data on global warming after thousands of private emails and documents were
leaked.

Hackers broke into the electronic files of the University of East Anglia's Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) in Britain and published 61 megabites of confidential files on the
internet, files in which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global
warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics.

The CRU, which tracks long-term changes in temperature, has repeatedly refused to provide
detailed information about the data underlying their temperature records that (supposedly)
show global warming.

So what's the big deal? This matters because The University of East
Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), usually works together with the
Hadley center (HadCRUT3), one of the four official sources of global
temperature data used by the IPCC.

Skeptics point to the leaked e-mails as evidence that scientific data has been rigged to
make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. The research center massaged
temperature data, they say. Global warming is fabricated! Meanwhile, the researchers
insist that the e-mails have been taken out of context.

University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more than 1,000 e-mails and
3,000 documents, but said they could not say how many of the stolen items were authentic.

Professor Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State
University, who features in many of the email exchanges, said "I'm not going to comment on
the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and,
I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc,
constitutes serious criminal activity. I'm hoping the perpetrators and their facilitators
will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows."

As if manipulation of the data were not the bigger problem here.
Mann was creator of the infamous and now discredited - and, in my
opinion, fraudulent - hockey-stick graph. The graph miraculously
made the Medieval Warm Period disappear.

In an e-mail from 1999, the center's director, Phil Jones, alludes to one of Mann's
articles in the journal Nature and writes, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of
adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards)
and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, said the email exchanges show researchers have colluded to establish the
scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.

"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always
described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in
scientific research," said Ebell. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant
displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support
their political position."

In one e-mail, Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, offered
to beat up skeptic Pat Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, out of
sympathy for Jones.

Another message has been interpreted as an attempt to control the publication of
research carried out by skeptical scientists.

One way of doing this would be by loading the panel of researchers who review papers ahead
of publication with experts who are 'on-message'.

Talk of a figure being 'shoehorned' into a report from the UN's International Panel of
Climate Change appears in another of the documents.

"If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW,"
said writer James Delingpole.

See the following links for more.

Climate Scientists Accused Of Twisting Warming Data
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Climate-scientists-accu
sed-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html


Climategate - The Global Warming Fraud Revealed
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-
the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/


Hackers Expose Global Warming Hoax
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229740/Hackers-expose-global-warming-Claims-leake
d-emails-reveal-research-centre-massaged-temperature-data.html

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/11/man-bear-pig-is-dead-emails-prove-global-warming-junk-science-conspiracy/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34079149/ns/us_news-washington_post

Thanks to Bill Sellers, Craig Adkins, Lyn Clark, Benjamin Napier, Doug McIntyre, Hans
Schreuder, Eric Worrall , Greg Bunt, Richard Lacaba, Piers Corbyn, Bob Ashworth, Marcus
Christopher, Jeff Rense and many, many others for these links


The above is from:
http://www.iceagenow.com/Hacked_files_expose_massive_global_warming_con.htm





BradGuth
2009-11-24 16:59:40 EST
On Nov 24, 11:31 am, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> Anyone that has followed the global warming debate, closely, and is privy to the efforts
> of the many, knows that
> the few have held center stage concerning this debate.  I find it humorous that the few
> are now being exposed
> for the frauds that they are, and that their methods are not only fraudulent, but
> borderline criminal when the full
> scope of their effort is exposed as the despotic scheme that it really is.  Since the late
> eighties I've been against
> all of these fools and shall relish each and every one of these individuals suffering the
> slings and arrows of scorn,
> and, hopefully, much worse.
>
> NC
>
> ***************
>
> Begin quote:
> 21 Nov 09 - One of the world's leading climate change research centers has been accused of
> manipulating data on global warming after thousands of private emails and documents were
> leaked.
>
> Hackers broke into the electronic files of the University of East Anglia's Climatic
> Research Unit (CRU) in Britain and published 61 megabites of confidential files on the
> internet, files in which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global
> warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics.
>
> The CRU, which tracks long-term changes in temperature, has repeatedly refused to provide
> detailed information about the data underlying their temperature records that (supposedly)
> show global warming.
>
>           So what's the big deal? This matters because The University of East
>           Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), usually works together with the
>           Hadley center (HadCRUT3), one of the four official sources of global
>           temperature data used by the IPCC.
>
> Skeptics point to the leaked e-mails as evidence that scientific data has been rigged to
> make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. The research center massaged
> temperature data, they say. Global warming is fabricated! Meanwhile, the researchers
> insist that the e-mails have been taken out of context.
>
> University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more than 1,000 e-mails and
> 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how many of the stolen items were authentic.
>
> Professor Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State
> University, who features in many of the email exchanges, said "I'm not going to comment on
> the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and,
> I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc,
> constitutes serious criminal activity. I'm hoping the perpetrators and their facilitators
> will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows."
>
>           As if manipulation of the data were not the bigger problem here.
>           Mann was creator of the infamous and now discredited - and, in my
>           opinion, fraudulent - hockey-stick graph. The graph miraculously
>           made the Medieval Warm Period disappear.
>
> In an e-mail from 1999, the center's director, Phil Jones, alludes to one of Mann's
> articles in the journal Nature and writes, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of
> adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards)
> and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
>
> Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise
> Institute, said the email exchanges show researchers have colluded to establish the
> scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.
>
> "It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always
> described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in
> scientific research," said Ebell. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant
> displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support
> their political position."
>
> In one e-mail, Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, offered
> to beat up skeptic Pat Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, out of
> sympathy for Jones.
>
> Another message has been interpreted as an attempt to control the publication of
> research carried out by skeptical scientists.
>
> One way of doing this would be by loading the panel of researchers who review papers ahead
> of publication with experts who are 'on-message'.
>
> Talk of a figure being 'shoehorned' into a report from the UN's International Panel of
> Climate Change appears in another of the documents.
>
> "If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW,"
> said writer James Delingpole.
>
> See the following links for more.
>
> Climate Scientists Accused Of Twisting Warming Datahttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Cl...
> sed-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html
>
> Climategate - The Global Warming Fraud Revealedhttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climatega...
> the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
>
> Hackers Expose Global Warming Hoaxhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229740/Hackers-expose-global...
> d-emails-reveal-research-centre-massaged-temperature-data.html
>
> http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/11/man-bear-pig-is-dead-ema...
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-ha...
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34079149/ns/us_news-washington_post
>
> Thanks to Bill Sellers, Craig Adkins, Lyn Clark, Benjamin Napier, Doug McIntyre, Hans
> Schreuder, Eric Worrall , Greg Bunt, Richard Lacaba, Piers Corbyn, Bob Ashworth, Marcus
> Christopher, Jeff Rense and many, many others for these links
>
> The above is from:http://www.iceagenow.com/Hacked_files_expose_massive_global_warming_c...

I suppose you're hiding all of that new cache of "slow ice" along with
all of those Muslim WMD and OBL that you insisted they each existed.
Now would be a good time to share that special knowledge as to the
whereabouts of all that slow ice that you've been hiding. Exactly how
many km3 of that slow ice do you have?

btw, there's also 250,000 km2 of ocean dead zones that you can return
to normal of perhaps 2,500 km2, and you might as well reverse those
ozone holes while you're at it.

~ BG

Nightcrawler
2009-11-24 17:17:53 EST
If you want slow ice check out New Zealand. They're getting a bunch of it.

The only dead zone I'm aware of is the space between your ears.


"BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b225ed9a-09e1-4c3b-a16a-d6322fef65f4@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

I suppose you're hiding all of that new cache of "slow ice" along with
all of those Muslim WMD and OBL that you insisted they each existed.
Now would be a good time to share that special knowledge as to the
whereabouts of all that slow ice that you've been hiding. Exactly how
many km3 of that slow ice do you have?

btw, there's also 250,000 km2 of ocean dead zones that you can return
to normal of perhaps 2,500 km2, and you might as well reverse those
ozone holes while you're at it.

~ BG



BradGuth
2009-11-25 00:36:58 EST
On Nov 24, 2:17 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> If you want slow ice check out New Zealand.  They're getting a bunch of it.
>
> The only dead zone I'm aware of is the space between your ears.
>
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:b225ed9a-09e1-4c3b-a16a-d6322fef65f4@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> I suppose you're hiding all of that new cache of "slow ice" along with
> all of those Muslim WMD and OBL that you insisted they each existed.
> Now would be a good time to share that special knowledge as to the
> whereabouts of all that slow ice that you've been hiding.  Exactly how
> many km3 of that slow ice do you have?
>
> btw,  there's also 250,000 km2 of ocean dead zones that you can return
> to normal of perhaps 2,500 km2, and you might as well reverse those
> ozone holes while you're at it.
>
>  ~ BG

Just checked Google news/blogs, and it’s not exactly looking good.

Antarctica is losing ice from its larger eastern side
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=atJRfSKS0cOA
“Since 2006, Antarctica’s ice loss may be as high as 220 billion tons
a year, the University of Texas scientists said in the paper. Ice loss
for the 2002 through 2005 period averaged 144 billion tons a year,
Chen said.” (the good news; that’s only 144 km3/year from a place that
should be at least stable if not increasing its slow ice volumes)

“Icebergs heading for New Zealand”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hHsk10EKSPtiPO-6PnhBAstCf9NA
http://blue-links.blogspot.com/2009/11/icebergs-heading-for-new-zealand.html

East Antarctica, Long Stable, Is Now Losing Ice
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1942828,00.html

New Zealand's glaciers were continuing to lose significant ice mass
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-11/23/content_12524685.htm

A giant iceberg twice the size of the Titanic has been spotted
floating towards New Zealand.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Iceberg-Floating-Towards-New-Zealand-Glacier-Spotted-Five-Miles-North-Of-Macquarie-Island/Article/200911215452081?lpos=World_News_Second_Home_Page_Feature_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15452081_Iceberg_Floating_Towards_New_Zealand%3A_Glacier_Spotted_Five_Miles_North_Of_Macquarie_Island

~ BG

Nightcrawler
2009-11-25 00:44:07 EST
Gee, I guess that slow ice didn't melt, after all. It's hard for it to be heading to New
Zealand if it was not there to begin with, and with it being minus 30 degrees centigrade
and all, I guess your melting fears are pretty much just alarmist bullshit. Though, the
ice flow heading to NZ is do to ocean currents actually heading that way, not abnormal
shedding.

Once again you show that you have no clue.


"BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5e3718b9-e600-4059-a0e9-73a85542c5d6@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 2:17 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:

<known info snipped>



BradGuth
2009-11-25 00:58:59 EST
On Nov 24, 9:44 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> Gee, I guess that slow ice didn't melt, after all.  It's hard for it to be heading to New
> Zealand if it was not there to begin with, and with it being minus 30 degrees centigrade
> and all, I guess your melting fears are pretty much just alarmist bullshit.   Though, the
> ice flow heading to NZ is do to ocean currents actually heading that way, not abnormal
> shedding.
>
> Once again you show that you have no clue.
>
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:5e3718b9-e600-4059-a0e9-73a85542c5d6@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Nov 24, 2:17 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
>
> <known info snipped>

Now you suggest that rogue icebergs never melt and otherwise rejoin
Antarctica? (could happen, if it were on Mars)

~ BG

Nightcrawler
2009-11-25 01:09:59 EST
Nope. Interesting enough, the last time NZ had such an ice flow was in the 30's.
Hmmm, that was 20 years, or so, after 1911. Do you remember me making that
reference?

"BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f1185807-e016-411e-a5fb-6e7a6748b44b@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 9:44 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:

Now you suggest that rogue icebergs never melt and otherwise rejoin
Antarctica? (could happen, if it were on Mars)

~ BG



BradGuth
2009-11-25 01:21:21 EST
On Nov 24, 10:09 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> Nope.  Interesting enough, the last time NZ had such an ice flow was in the 30's.
> Hmmm, that was 20 years, or so, after 1911.  Do you remember me making that
> reference?
>
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:f1185807-e016-411e-a5fb-6e7a6748b44b@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Nov 24, 9:44 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
>
> Now you suggest that rogue icebergs never melt and otherwise rejoin
> Antarctica? (could happen, if it were on Mars)
>
>  ~ BG

Fast ice (aka snow) doesn't count. Icebergs (slow ice) hardly ever
rejoins where it came from, instead it migrates towards warming waters
and melts.

I guess an extra 50 meters of ocean level is going to have to be good
for the soul, because sure as hell Republican Zionist Nazis are not
about to change or much less do anything positive/constructive towards
salvaging our frail environment.

~ BG

Hagar
2009-11-25 09:51:59 EST

"Nightcrawler" <Dirtydeeds@dirtcheap.net> wrote in message
news:K4WdnWSu_bnUV5HWnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Nope. Interesting enough, the last time NZ had such an ice flow was in
> the 30's.
> Hmmm, that was 20 years, or so, after 1911. Do you remember me making
> that
> reference?
>
> "BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f1185807-e016-411e-a5fb-6e7a6748b44b@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 24, 9:44 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
>
> Now you suggest that rogue icebergs never melt and otherwise rejoin
> Antarctica? (could happen, if it were on Mars)
>
> ~ BG
>
It ha never occurred to you that new iceberg masses are being deposited, by
falling snow, as the old ones calve off from the glacier. The concept is
well
understood by most normal people ... though you environmental whackos
seem to have problems grasping that natural process ...



BradGuth
2009-11-25 10:04:08 EST
On Nov 25, 6:51 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
> "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote in message
>
> news:K4WdnWSu_bnUV5HWnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@giganews.com...> Nope.  Interesting enough, the last time NZ had such an ice flow was in
> > the 30's.
> > Hmmm, that was 20 years, or so, after 1911.  Do you remember me making
> > that
> > reference?
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:f1185807-e016-411e-a5fb-6e7a6748b44b@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 24, 9:44 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
>
> > Now you suggest that rogue icebergs never melt and otherwise rejoin
> > Antarctica? (could happen, if it were on Mars)
>
> > ~ BG
>
> It ha never occurred to you that new iceberg masses are being deposited, by
> falling snow, as the old ones calve off from the glacier.  The concept is
> well
> understood by most normal people ... though you environmental whackos
> seem to have problems grasping that natural process ...

Again, fast ice doesn't count. Obviously if the temperature of the
area receiving snow is never much above freezing, then such snow adds
to and thus creates glaciers of slow ice.

Antarctica is losing ice from its larger eastern side
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=atJRfSKS0cOA
“Since 2006, Antarctica’s ice loss may be as high as 220 billion tons
a year, the University of Texas scientists said in the paper. Ice loss
for the 2002 through 2005 period averaged 144 billion tons a year,
Chen said.” (the good news; that’s only 144 km3/year from a place that
should be at least stable if not increasing its “slow ice” volumes)

Perhaps this coming end of summer for Antarctica will become a record
loss of 240 billion tonnes, bringing the global loss of ‘slow ice’ to
roughly 300 billion tonnes/year for the north/south summers of
2009~2010. Not to worry, because that’s just another drop in the old
bucket that’s already overflowing, with next year adding perhaps an
average km3/day. Add that to the km3/day of various land erosion
that's going into the drink makes 2 km3/day. (what could possibly go
wrong?)

~ BG
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron