Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 2/9
- Phantom on Open thread 2/9
- ANTI on Open thread 2/9
- sursum on Open thread 2/9
- Shocker_1 on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- Shocker_1 on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- Shocker_1 on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- gster on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- Shocker_1 on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- Shocker_1 on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
241 Comments
Ho hum. Front page of this mornings Wichita Eagle: “How much does U.S. owe? $39,000 a person.”
Apparently that’s the portion of the current $11 trillion national debt divided among the U.S. population of more than 300,000,000 people.
Now we are talking about big money.
I have watched the national debt grow since reading about it in sixth grade in the Weekly Reader. Unfortunately there is no incentive for our President and Congress to stop this growth.
Personally I believe excessive borrowing and debt by both government, non-government and individuals is what is driving our economy into a bottomless economic pit.
But no end in sight.
We can’t afford climate change laws like ObamaCare.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_warming_oops_6apJWztQL4oQlDNSJAJs2J
Global Warming Consensus: Garbage In, Garbage Out
by Michael Barone
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2009/11/30/global_warming_consensus_garbage_in,_garbage_out
” The 61 megabytes of CRU e-mails and documents made public by a hacker cast serious doubt on the ballyhooed consensus on manmade global warming that the Copenhagen summit was called to address.
The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures, relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals. Some of the more pungent e-mails:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
“Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”
“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.”
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.”
“I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU temperature station data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”
You get the idea. The most charitable plausible explanation I have seen comes from The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle. “The CRU’s main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish.”
“Australian geologist Ian Plimer, a global warming skeptic, is more blunt. The e-mails “show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination.”
Thanks for the link George.
I always like to start my morning reading politcally biased nonsense.
A few comments concerning the AGW lie:
BobFromBinghamton
11/30/2009 7:38 AM
Junk science proffered as “The Real Thing” by liars like Al Gore & The Great Messiah. The only thing these people truly want is to steal your personal freedoms. Once again they have been exposed to be exactly what they are..Bold-faced liars who have their own agenda. Thankfully treaties still need a two-thirds vote. It will NEVER happen. Thankfully.
__________________________________________________
EricArthurBlair
11/30/2009 7:22 AM
The bloated, braindead cult leader Algore has been strangely silent while his house of cards has come tumbling down.
_________________________________________________
ulysses
11/30/2009 6:45 AM
Man-made climate change has a lot more to do with a religious frame of mind than a scientific one. It’s a great fraud and people are waking up to this whle the elites keep making fools of themselves insisting that man-made climate change is a reality.
Climate Research Unit admits to throwing away data
Fox News
Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
==========================
Alarmist translation: “We did our own peer review with our own buddies and those we bribed with position and prestige. No need for real scientist to see the original data.
Question: What self-respecting scientist throws away data without saving that data in original form before doing data manipulation. How could there be a peer review on skewed data with no original base left?
Answer: There can’t be a peer review worth a damn, because there is no verifiable data left to review.
As with many topics on WE Blog, this particular issue has become terminally tangential.
Okay, I’m willing (for discussion) to accept there’s no such thing as global warming.
Or if there is, that human activity has nothing to do with it.
Or if altering human activity might have an impact on global warming.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS –
By conserving energy we already produce, we’d have to produce less energy.
Instead of depending on a finite source of depleting supplies of fossil fuels, we might be better off in the long run.
Shooting and bombing people who happen to live on top of “our” oil hasn’t worked out all that well, has it?
According to our resident geologist, ol’ “Regular,” mountaintop-removal coal mining is not possible. So that’s not a worry.
If global warming is not a threat, what’s the downside of creating a new energy infrastructure?
If global warming is natural, what’s the downside of creating new technologies that’ll air condition our homes and offices?
The poor ignorant, confused, misinformed, and blinded-by-ideology AGW science deniers cannot understand climate science — AND THEY CANNOT UNDERSTAND CONTEXT.
‘The CRU hack: Context‘
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama
A foreign policy of penance has won America no friends.
By FOUAD AJAMI
For Full Article Click Here
” 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 homogenized) data.” “
All of that is just find Monkey, the point is we have been getting lied to from those we put expected to put our trust in.
This economy doesn’t need to be further taxed to accomplish those things.
Positive incentives are fine, but punitive actions to force compliance with an agenda when the underlying facts are not even proven yet and the data has been falsified, obstructed and destroyed is bad science and bad government.
” 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 homogenized) data.”
Right cosmos, then why did they contrive, collude, slant or falsify, obstruct, and lie.
What confidence can anyone have in their “quality controlled and homogenized data”.
I’ll tell you…..NONE!
cosMAO writes:
(quality controlled and homogenized)data
—————-
Translation: The data has been forever corrupted and manipulated beyond its original form. There is no way for outside sources to verify the original data.
This folks is the equivalent of ‘burning the tapes’ in an investigation of a crime.
“Boxlock20″ –
If you think for a minute Big Oil and Big Coal aren’t funding the anti Global Warming propaganda war you’re more naive than even I can can imagine.
Wichita temperature records for this date:
Record High: 72° F in 1949
Record Low: 5° F in 1976
It’s a good thing no one destroyed the temperature data from Wichita!
boxlock20 posted November 30, 2009 at 6:56 am
“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.”
—————————–
cosmos_originally posted November 29, 2009 at 2:33 pm
boxlock20,
Is “hide the decline” one of your examples of what’s wrong with peer-reviewed science?
Here’s the “decline”, hidden(sic) in plain sight.
‘Northern Hemisphere Summer Temperatures of the Last Six Centuries‘
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/briffa.html
“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.” – Thomas Jefferson
——–
Or in this case, inter-generational war as we saddle our kids with more and more debt. The article today in the Eagle indicated we owe $39,000 per American. Yikes!
‘Hack‘
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/hack/
“If anything, the messages prove that there is not any conspiracy, and the scientists at CRU did not fudge data or engage in deceptive practices to push their “agenda.” “
boxlock20,
Re your 6:54 am post — do you believe that a scientific paper should push a hypothesis, but NOT include any data to support that hypothesis?
If your answer is ‘yes’, please explain why.
cosmos,
Do you think ‘good scientists’, doing ‘good science’ need to resort to lying, contriving, conniving, and falsifying, hiding, and destroying data?
“If your answer is ‘yes’, please explain why.”
Chuckle chuckle!
This from cosmos and his ‘peer reviewed AGW scientists’:
Hey, who ya goin’a believe….me or your lying eyes.
Chuckle, chuckle!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The CRU data clearly indicates that. But I can also take the CRU emails and underscore how they represent a serious cover up, to wit this one email the 1940’s blip:
Phil,
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.
I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
This ‘inconvenient truth’ showed up in both the land and sea data. You can see it all over the world. And since it shows today not much different from then, it had to be deleted from history and CRU’s own data had to been kept under wraps.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hide the decline
Remember, much of or all of the ‘peer review’ on AGW was doNE using the ‘homogenized’ and ‘adjusted’ data.
Not everyone was collusive in doing ‘bad science’ but….
GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT !!!
‘doNE’ should read ‘done’, of course.
That clarification done for cosmos’s benefit he seems unable to read through minor typos.
Hide the decline
Here’s a post WE Blog CONs steadfastly refuse to address –
” I’m willing (for discussion) to accept there’s no such thing as global warming.
Or if there is, that human activity has nothing to do with it.
Or if altering human activity might have an impact on global warming.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS –
By conserving energy we already produce, we’d have to produce less energy.
Instead of depending on a finite source of depleting supplies of fossil fuels, we might be better off in the long run.
Shooting and bombing people who happen to live on top of “our” oil hasn’t worked out all that well, has it?
According to our resident geologist, ol’ “Regular,” mountaintop-removal coal mining is not possible. So that’s not a worry.
If global warming is not a threat, what’s the downside of creating a new energy infrastructure?
If global warming is natural, what’s the downside of creating new technologies that’ll air condition our homes and offices?”
Nah.
WE Blog CONs would rather cut-and-post boilerplate propaganda from Exxon-Mobile, et al.
WE Blog CONs just hate Al Gore and would rise up on their hind legs against anything he’s for.
November 29, 2009
CRU emails were leaked before they were hacked
Thomas Lifson
The BBC received copies of some of the CRU emails more than a month ago, but did nothing about them, sitting on explosive evidence of fraud. The UK Daily Mail reports:
The BBC has become tangled in the row over the alleged manipulation of scientific data on global warming.
One of its reporters has revealed he was sent some of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia more than a month ago – but did nothing about them.
Despite the explosive nature of some of the messages – which revealed apparent attempts by the CRU’s head, Professor Phil Jones, to destroy global temperature data rather than give it to scientists with opposing views – Paul Hudson failed to report the story.
This has led to suspicions that the scandal was ignored because it ran counter to what critics say is the BBC’s unquestioning acceptance in many of its programmes that man-made climate change is destroying the planet.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/cru_emails_were_leaked_before.html
‘No, BBC was not sent the stolen emails‘
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/no_bbc_was_not_sent_the_stolen.php
boxlock20 posted November 30, 2009 at 8:59 am
cosmos,
Do you think ‘good scientists’, doing ‘good science’ need to resort to lying, contriving, conniving, and falsifying, hiding, and destroying data?
———————–
No, and the illegally hacked and published emails contain no proof that they did.
‘Hack‘
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/hack/
“If anything, the messages prove that there is not any conspiracy, and the scientists at CRU did not fudge data or engage in deceptive practices to push their “agenda.” “
Monkey,
I answered you once, here it is again.
All of that is just find Monkey, the point is we have been getting lied to from those we are expected to place our trust in.
This economy doesn’t need to be further taxed to accomplish those things.
Positive incentives are fine, but punitive actions to force compliance with an agenda when the underlying facts are not even proven yet and the data has been falsified, obstructed and destroyed is bad science and bad government.
“pl_decline.pro”:
;
; Now apply a completely artificial adjustment for the decline
; (only where coefficient is positive!)
;
tfac=declinets-cval
What chance is there of boxlock20, Regular, donndublin, soldevvb, and other AGW science deniers being able to think rationally about climate science?
I’ll tell you. . . NONE!
cosmos,
Just READ the emails.
They most certainly DO show they resorted to lying, contriving, conniving, and falsifying, hiding, and destroying data.
The data is suspect, the data everyone has been using.
Garbage In….Garbage Out.
Now they, and you, are acting like a kid that has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar and fudge on his lips and he is steadfastly denying stealing the cookies.
briffa_sep98_e.pro & briffa_sep98_d.pro
“****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********”
…
Year Fudge Factor
1904 0
1909 0
1914 0
1919 0
1924 0
1929 -0.1
1934 -0.25
1939 -0.3
1944 0
1949 -0.1
1954 0.3
1959 0.8
1964 1.2
1969 1.7
1974 2.5
1979 2.6
1984 2.6
1989 2.6
1994 2.6
1999 2.6
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Makes it a little easier to see why the alarmists claim the temps have been rising.
Hide the decline.
Buckets and Buckets of Temperature Lies
A new paper published in Nature claims to have uncovered an almighty cock-up in the sea surface temperature record just after the Second World War. Previously the temperature records showed a sharp fall, but it turns out that this was wrong. According to the authors:
Now, of course, the temperature drop turns out to be a mistake, the modellers are going to have to start to explain away why their post-war reconstructions are so much lower than the recorded temperatures. Their alternative is to suddenly discover that the effect of aerosols is not as great as previously thought or that aerosol concentrations were lower, but this will just make it look as if they just throw anything into the models which seems to give the “right” answer, and physics be damned.
And to add to the stubbed toe of SST, Bucket adjustments pretty much drop from sight in AR4. Yeah, there’s no coverup. HIDE THE DECLINE!
by Steve McIntyre on May 28th, 2008
“but punitive actions to force compliance with an agenda when the underlying facts are not even proven”
Well, my son had got into the habit of taking a bath AND a shower in the morning. He knows this is incredibly wasteful of both the water and the gas to heat it. But he COULD do it. So he has. Pleas that saving energy and water not only saves money but valuable resources fell on unsympathetic ears.
He knows what the right thing to do is but refuses to do it.
Beginning tomorrow, I will allow him 10 minutes of running hot water. Then I will shut the water off at the main valve.
Predictions:
1 MUCH wailing and gnashing of teeth. But I’m used to that.
2 Quicker get ready time and expedited departure for school.
Sacrifices: minimal and entirely reasonable.
boxlock20 posted November 30, 2009 at 9:36 am
cosmos,
Just READ the emails.
They most certainly DO show they resorted to lying, contriving, conniving, and falsifying, hiding, and destroying data.
———————–
ONLY if you very stupidly ignore the context, reality, and what actually happened.
‘The CRU hack: Context‘
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
donndublin,
You’ve claimed that you’re a “professional engineer”. Do you believe that temperature measurements from different sites should be treated as if they came from the same site?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/11/hacked-files-could-raise-doubts-about-global-warming/#comment-698526
BlueJ–
That’s funny!
That’s exactly what the Japanese do. They wash very thoroughly under a shower (usually a hand held nozzle), and then they soak in a really hot tub.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU temperature station data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!” [The CRU has now admitted, in response to a Freedom of Information re quest, that it threw out much of the raw data on which its global- warming work is based, the Sun day Times of London reported yesterday.-- Ed.]
“Boxlock20″ –
You kinda missed the point.
Global Warming is a tangential issue of energy policy.
You can’t be much further out on the fringe than to obsess on a tangential issue.
It flat makes no sense humans can continue to treat the atmosphere as a sewer without consequences.
But that doesn’t address the finite supply of fossil fuels, emerging technologies for renewable energy, the pollution of the status quo, or the visceral hatred CONs seem to have for Al Gore.
Correct, MH–
CONservatives have nothing to do with conservation these days.
It’s all about CONsumption–use it up as fast as possible.
Famous CON statements of the past:
1780 “Shoot as many wolves as you can. They’re so plentiful, we’ll always have too many.”
1880 “Shoot as many buffalo as you can. They’re so plentiful, we’ll always have too many.”
1920 “Shoot as many passenger pigeons as you can. They’re so plentiful, we’ll always have too many.”
1970 “Catch as much codfish as you can. They’re so plentiful, we’ll always have too many.”
co2 lags behind temperature – its going to get colder – a natural cycle
The Green Agenda
HIDE THE DECLINE!
BlueJay posted November 30, 2009 at 9:41 am
Beginning tomorrow, I will allow him 10 minutes of running hot water. Then I will shut the water off at the main valve.
————————
Run the shower just enough to get wet, then turn it off.
Use soap (and shampoo), then turn shower on to rinse off soap (and shampoo).
Capn spews: Famous CON statements of the past
———————-
Does your wife actually kiss that filthy lying mouth?
Yeah Capn, cons in 17, 18th and 19th century were responsible for everything.
LMAO!
I don’t think I’ve ever read a more ridiculous statment in my entire life.
What chance is there of Regular being able to think rationally about climate science?
I’ll tell you. . . NONE!
I think Donn has hit on the real issue here. The original leak was a whistle blower and the information and emails were hidden and not released. Much like the ACORN tapes the leaker had to go public and release them to a much larger audience because his conscience demanded no less.
Cosmos is completely clueless but he can’t help it. He has been reprogramed – it took two full days to do this – and they forgot to program logic. A robot is only as good as the person pushing his keys.
The same fishermen and their CON enablers in the 70’s who were p***ing and moaning about government regulations on cod harvest are now asking why the government didn’t do more when the fishing grounds collapsed.
Nice.
Regular–
I won’t bring up your sister in a derogatory way if you don’t bring up my wife.
Cosmao,
What does that have to do with CRU fraud? Once again you’ve resorted to ASSumptions and impLIES.
You must beLIEve the AGW theory is an absolute fact by calling anyone who questions your theory a “denier”. Those who don’t believe historical facts like the holocaust are called “deniers”. So you equate AGW to a historical fact.
No wonder you’re known as the WEblog wacko
cosMAO, the non-scientist watermelon of the WEBlog, tries hard, but fails miserably.
If you thunk cosMAO with your finger, you’ll hear that hollow full of pi$$ sound.
Also what you call a “lie” is just a matter of opinion.
I think the same mindset that led to the collapse of species and ecosystems in the past is the same mindset that CONs show now.
So in that sense, they are the same, yes.
CapnAmerica
Posted November 30, 2009 at 10:00 am | Permalink
Regular–
I won’t bring up your sister in a derogatory way if you don’t bring up my wife.
——————
Then stop blaming every condition you don’t like on conservatives.
Your statement you made at 9:53 a.m. (on government time) was beyond ludicrous – it was just sad that an adult could even think that way.
CapnAmerica
Posted November 30, 2009 at 10:01 am | Permalink
Also what you call a “lie” is just a matter of opinion.
I think the same mindset that led to the collapse of species and ecosystems in the past is the same mindset that CONs show now.
=======================
Yeah, the collapse of the ecosystem of the Jurassic period was no doubt to gun-wielding, cadillac-driving, factory smoke-spewing conservatives.
(rolls eyes)
Fake statistics, if the allegation is true, is very bad, no question about it.
However, judging from the historical data, CO2 increase predates the global temperature rise by many decades.
So temps don’t really have to be rising right now for catastrophic global warming to be fully underway.
The historically high CO2 concentrations are enough in themselves to warrant major change.
Which of these stories will America be talking about this week? 1. Bush let Ossama walk free.
2. Huckabe let cop killer walk free.
3. Tiger Woods involved in fender bender.
Of course, I was referring to ecosystems that HAVE been changed by humans.
But if the Jurassic dinosaurs were made extinct by a meteor or comet strike–as I believe the prevailing theory surmises–then we have the capability to do the same thing today in a nuclear war.
That’s what Carl Sagan and others were warning about with their “nuclear winter” theory.
CapnAmerica oozes
“Famous CON statements of the past:
1780 “Shoot as many wolves as you can. They’re so plentiful, we’ll always have too many.”
1880 “Shoot as many buffalo as you can. They’re so plentiful, we’ll always have too many.”
1920 “Shoot as many passenger pigeons as you can. They’re so plentiful, we’ll always have too many.”
1970 “Catch as much codfish as you can. They’re so plentiful, we’ll always have too many.”
Plase tell us which CON made these statments, when, and what they politics and party were at the time. Please show your work
Capn writes: The historically high CO2 concentrations are enough in themselves to warrant major change.
————————
True, if you can stop the ocean from belching up co2 stored from several hundred years ago.
Putting a tax on anything carbon related?
– Will do absolutely nothing except fatten the pockets of the very rich and make the poor – well poorer. This has been shown to be true in Europe where Energy companies since the Kyoto Treaty have made record setting profits selling carbon based energies.
Then stop blaming every condition you don’t like on conservatives.
I guess that means “yes” in Regular-speak.
So Capn it would seem the question is how much does man contribute to this rise. Does climate change happen naturally and then cycle again. Can crippling our nation and making it completely unable to compete with other countries in manufacturing do one thing to really reverse something we had nothing to do with in the first place.
These emails were leaked because someone inside the organization saw an attempt to manipulate data to show a result not get a result by interpreting data. Let it play out to it’s logical conclusion instead of having the cosmos alarmists run the show.
CapnAmerica
Posted November 30, 2009 at 10:13 am | Permalink
Then stop blaming every condition you don’t like on conservatives.
I guess that means “yes” in Regular-speak.
=========================
I guess that means the Capn will continue to tell lies in Progressive Kommie speak.
I didn’t say that I support carbon taxes.
I did say that I support change . . . as in not just doing the same thing we’ve done since the invention of the internal combustion engine and hope that our best scientists are all wrong.
CapnAmerica
Posted November 30, 2009 at 10:14 am | Permalink
I didn’t say that I support carbon taxes.
I did say that I support change . . . as in not just doing the same thing we’ve done since the invention of the internal combustion engine and hope that our best scientists are all wrong.
============================
We can save a lot by using nuclear energy.
Nothing like lagging behind the rest of the world in developing nuclear energy to quell the cost of petroleum imports and natural resource use.
Well, Regular, I’ve jerked the chain of liberal posters for their nasty and out-of-line comments meant to do nothing but emotionally wound you RE: your sister.
I hope that you could respect that same intention RE: my wife.
It’s not too much to ask.
I actually support the use of more nuclear power.
In fact, we should be joining with every industrialized and industrializing nation in the world for a massive push to develop FUSION power.
CapnAmerica
Posted November 30, 2009 at 10:17 am | Permalink
Well, Regular, I’ve jerked the chain of liberal posters for their nasty and out-of-line comments meant to do nothing but emotionally wound you RE: your sister.
I hope that you could respect that same intention RE: my wife.
It’s not too much to ask.
——————–
There seems to be little improvement on this blog in that regard Capn. It has gotten worse.
Perhaps it wasn’t their chain you were jerking?
Phantom
Posted November 30, 2009 at 10:08 am | Permalink
Which of these stories will America be talking about this week? 1. Bush let Ossama walk free.
2. Huckabe let cop killer walk free.
3. Tiger Woods involved in fender bender.
————
Revisionist History ala Phantom
1. Clinton let Obama walk free.
2. Huckabee is no longer – if he ever was – a viable candidate for the republic prez ticket. Fine with me – I didn’t vote for him anyway.
3. Who cares – he hit a fire plug at the end of his own driveway. Sounds to me as if it is a private matter and the public and the police should go after real lawbreakers.
————-
Why did the dems go after Barney Franks when his live in was running a ‘call boy’ ring out of his basement.
How about when he had an entire field of pot plants in his basement.
————–
Why does the left always ignore their own idiots?
Oko asks: Does climate change happen naturally and then cycle again?
Yes.
Can climate change happen because of mega-tonnages of carbon sequestered in the ground (coal, oil, natural gas) for a couple million years being burned at an ever increasing rate and released without limit into the atmosphere?
Yes.
Why does the left always ignore their own idiots?
Because those idiots don’t kill people . . .
apnAmerica
Posted November 30, 2009 at 10:23 am | Permalink
Oko asks: Does climate change happen naturally and then cycle again?
Yes.
Can climate change happen because of mega-tonnages of carbon sequestered in the ground (coal, oil, natural gas) for a couple million years being burned at an ever increasing rate and released without limit into the atmosphere?
Yes.
============================
CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity.
CapnAmerica posted November 30, 2009 at 10:07 am
However, judging from the historical data, CO2 increase predates the global temperature rise by many decades.
———————————
In the geologic past, slight orbital changes (Milankovitch) triggered a small amount of warming (or cooling).
The small warming (or cooling) caused CO2 levels to change, about 800 – 1000 years later.
The changes in CO2 levels helped amplify the warming (or cooling) triggered by the earlier orbital changes.
Scientists had predicted, before the ice cores showed that CO2 lagged the temperatures, that the weak orbital factor alone was insufficient to cause the temperature changes.
Now — humans have increased CO2 levels, which is causing (triggering) the temperature rise.
“Read the emails.”
A nice thought, though some refer to chant “Hide the Decline!” over and over, as if that proves something.
How about this one?_______________________
From: T.Osborn@uea.ac.uk (by way of Tim Osborn )
To: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
Subject: No Subject
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 00:35:39 +0100
From: CPCMB::F055 11-JUL-1995 10:53:56.46
To: MX%”pierce@cirrus.ucsd.edu”
CC: F055
Subj: Re: Hi and questions
Dave
You’re right, smoothing the P-E field is a much bigger change than adding
a bit of noise, or the statistical model feedback. But some papers give the
indication that the strong instability/variability of the thermohaline
circulation under traditional mixed boundary conditions cannot possibly
occur when a more realistic SST condition is used. Yet that’s not true
of some current models – e.g.:
- some LSG/EBM configurations still oscillate,
- the Manabe & Stouffer 1988 coupled model had two stable states,
- Mikolajewicz and Maier-Reimer 1994 still could collapse NADW even with a
reduced coupling of 16 W/m**2/K (I note your caveat about the lack of scale
dependence though),
- the Stocker et al 1992 zonally averaged coupled model had multiple
equilibria,
- the OPYC/ECHAM2 coupled run (Lunkeit et al) shows what appears to be a
temporary collapse of NADW.
The answer is that the stability depends on the relative buoyancy forcing of
heat and fresh-water, as you’ve pointed in both you’re papers. Freeing up
the SST increases the stabilising (not static stability, but stability of the
model’s state) effect of the heat flux – but doesn’t GUARANTEE that it will
be stronger than the fresh-water flux effect. To be realistic, the fresh-water
flux used should ideally be the observed flux – I agree that a diagnosed field
hides model errors. Its similar to the flux correction or no flux correction
dilemna of coupled models – do you want a realistic state with unrealistic
processes, or a possibly unrealistic state with realistic processes. Either
way, the response of the model to perturbations cannot be guaranteed to be
realistic. The best current way is to do both. Then, with luck, the real
world will lie between the two answers obtained.
The SALFLU_EBM file is not readable yet, although it is there.
You have some interesting papers on your WWW page – the Marginal Sea model
looks very innovative. Also, the LSG/EBM experiment with the open Panama
Isthmus shows good results. What P-E forcing field did you use for that run,
and what small-scale coupling coefficient?
Cheers,
Tim Tim Osborn, CRU, UEA, UK
Regular–
Even if true, and I have my doubts, a small percentage of a really big number is still a really big number.
0.117 percent = .0012. .0012 of Bill Gates’s wealth is still 12 x 10 to the 5th or 1.2 million dollars.
I’d take .0012th of Bill Gates’s wealth if it were offered to me, wouldn’t you?
Now what see there, even cherry-picked for language deniers like to seize upon, is scientists doing science.
rage writes: The answer is that the stability depends on the relative buoyancy forcing of
heat and fresh-water, as you’ve pointed in both you’re papers. Freeing up
the SST increases the stabilising (not static stability, but stability of the
model’s state) effect of the heat flux – but doesn’t GUARANTEE that it will
be stronger than the fresh-water flux effect.
————————
Translated – How to avoid the Law of Thermodynamics.
CapnAmerica
Posted November 30, 2009 at 10:37 am | Permalink
Regular–
Even if true, and I have my doubts, a small percentage of a really big number is still a really big number.
0.117 percent = .0012. .0012 of Bill Gates’s wealth is still 12 x 10 to the 5th or 1.2 million dollars.
I’d take .0012th of Bill Gates’s wealth if it were offered to me, wouldn’t you?
==============================
Sure, but try to influence the world’s market place with 0.0012th of Bill Gates wealth and there you find the problem of insignificant inertia in trying to move the mountain range.
Translated – How to avoid the Law of Thermodynamics.
. . .meaning that you don’t comprehend what they’re talking about. That’s okay.
Heh.
Ol’ “Regular” comes out from behind his computer to attack again.
You’d think the virtual slap-down he got from me over the weekend might have tempered his moods. But no…
CapnAmerica posted November 30, 2009 at 10:37 am
Regular–
Even if true, and I have my doubts, a small percentage of a really big number is still a really big number.
———————————-
What Regular posted was, as usual, not true.
CO2 accounts for about 9 to 26% (depending on overlaps) of the “greeenhouse” effect.
CO2 can drive temperature changes, which changes the amount of water vapor, which has a greater “greeenhouse” effect — causing a positive feedback.
Yet more conspiratorial conversations from the “Climategate” emails:
_______________________________________________
Martin Juckes wrote:
> Hello Prof. Hughes,
>
> I’m involved in a discussion with Stephen McIntyre about Bristlecone pines,
> which I have used as temperature proxies in a recent work
> (http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/cp/cpd/2/1001/cpd-2-1001.htm).
>
> I’ve read the NAS report section on this issue, and most of the references
> cited in the paragraph about bristlecones. I’m unimpressed by the evidence
> presented to support the idea that these valuable records of past climate
> should be discarded. In particular, the most relevant study appears to be
> that of Bunn et al., and this clearly shows anomalous strip-bark growth
> occurring well before significant atmospheric CO2 rises. Their study used
> whitebark pine, which is clearly not the same as bristlecone, but perhaps
> closer than the orange trees cited by Graybill and Idso.
>
> I’m looking for further literature and if possible data on the issue. Do you
> know of any data on anomalous growth in bristlecone strip-bark pines which is
> available for analysis?
>
> sincerely,
> Martin Juckes
>
Dear Dr. Jukes,
I’m afraid that, apart from the Bunn et al 2003 paper you mention, I
know of no other recent literature or data directly relevant to this
question. There is a graduate student here working on a dissertation
related to this, but neither their data nor any publications on them are
available at the moment. Two points concerning Graybill and Idso (1993):
1) I don’t think the sour orange trees used in Sherwood Idso’s
experiments were stripbark – where did this idea come from? 2) When
considering the use of upper forest border bristlecone pine (e.g. Sheep
Mountain, Campito Mountain, and similar sites mainly above 3100m in the
relevant region) as temperature proxies it would be a mistake to
discount Figure 3 in Graybill and Idso (1993) which is a comparison of a
ufb bristlecone pine chronology with a smoothed gridpoint reconstruction
from maximum latewood density in quite different trees provided by Keith
Briffa, one of your co-authors. I read this graph as confirmation of
LaMarche’s interpretation of the ufb bcp records as having a ~bidecadal
temperature signal combined with an interannual precipitation signal, at
least before the 20th century. This is referred to Hughes and Funkhouser
(2003).
I hope this helps, Malcolm Hughes
What percentage change of CO2 decline led to the last ice age?
I don’t know . . . but I’m betting it wasn’t more than 3 percent . . .
“All of that is just find Monkey, the point is we have been getting lied to from those we put expected to put our trust in.”
Boxlock what MH is saying in the post he has posted the last couple of days – is the end still justifies the means.
Enacting policies under the deception of GW, is still better for mankind – despite it being a lie.
In other words, if 3 percent of CO2 down leads to frozen ice at the equator, what would 3 percent up lead to?
BTW, thanks Rage for putting the “stolen e-mails” in some perspective.
“Shooting and bombing people who happen to live on top of “our” oil hasn’t worked out all that well, has it?”
So Monkeyhawk, why hasn’t Obama stopped it?
Enacting policies under the deception of GW, is still better for mankind – despite it being a lie.
But MHawk was saying that these policies will have good effects whether catastrophic GW is true or not.
Is wind power bad? Are electric cars bad? Is spewing SO2 that acidifies rain and Hg that is a potent neurotoxin from burning coal good?
I guess if you believe the neo-Nazis at Stormfront, you can believe anything.
Obama lied. How do libs live with that?
“Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants could receive health care coverage from their employers under the bills winding their way through Congress, despite President Obama’s explicit pledge that illegal immigrants would not benefit.
rough estimate by the Center for Immigration Studies suggests that the practical effect of the mandates would be that about 1 million illegal immigrants could obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.”
why hasn’t Obama stopped it?
He’s in the process of stopping it.
He has already withdrawn some 30 thousand troops from Iraq.
BTW, thanks Rage for putting the “stolen e-mails” in some perspective.
You’re welcome, sir. I’m sure the deniers can cherry-pick other statements (hell, pretty much anything that shows scientists arguing or expressing doubts–that’s an all-too-common tactic).
Of course, if absolute certainty is found, then they will be attacked for cult-like arrogance. DIYD, DIYD.
Rage
Posted November 30, 2009 at 10:42 am | Permalink
Translated – How to avoid the Law of Thermodynamics.
. . .meaning that you don’t comprehend what they’re talking about. That’s okay.
—————–
It means that you don’t understand science or the insignifance of buoyancy in temperature energy.
Which will float the surface in an ocean? Cold water or warmer water?
Hint: 90 percent of the ocean’s volume is at 32-37.5 degrees Fahrenheit because of volume/density equilibrium in deep water.
The Center [for Immigration Studies] is animated by a . . . low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants . . .
http://cis.org/About
Wow. Same as Stormfront.
Surprise surprise surprise.
insignifance = significance
What will float in ocean water?
Saltier water or fresher water?
Hint–this is how island countries without fresh water streams or lakes get their drinking water . . .
cosMAO unscientifically writes: What Regular posted was, as usual, not true.
CO2 accounts for about 9 to 26% (depending on overlaps) of the “greeenhouse” effect.
———————-
Wow cosMAO, just wow…
That’s quite a spread of co2 percent you have!
Is that the first law of ‘fudge factoring?’
“But MHawk was saying that these policies will have good effects whether catastrophic GW is true or not.
Is wind power bad? Are electric cars bad? Is spewing S……………….”
Capn you confirmed my post – you supported the fact that for liberals, democrats, or GW’s (take your pick), the ends justify the means.
To lie – to enact legislation which will increase the cost of doing business and consumers who buy the products (e.g. Cap & Tax) based upon a perverted lie – which can no longer be supported for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gases – and therefore GW, is totally screwed up policy.
Further Cap & Trade is a great risk on an already crumbling economy – for the greater good (that is still not completed supported by science but emotion).
Poor, poor Monkeyhawk!
Desperately tries to get some attention with his bogus plea for a civil debate on climate change.
You don’t deserve serious consideration. You’re a fool.
You think that you are too clever, but you’re just an ignorant fool.
You preface your remarks with a statement that pretty much sets the tone for your ignorant plea,
“. . .terminally tangential.”
How incredibly stupid! Of course it’s tangential. Liberals refuse to (or are incapable of) engaging in meaningful debate on climate change. Terminally? Really? If it was really terminal then there is no point continuing.
Your next statement is as condescending as it is stupid,
“Okay, I’m willing (for discussion) to accept there’s no such thing as global warming.”
Nothing makes me want to have a serious discussion with anyone more than being treated with contempt and condensation.
Your next two statements are merely nonsensical, not worthy of serious comment,
“Or if there is, that human activity has nothing to do with it.
“Or if altering human activity might have an impact on global warming.”
You continue by shouting,
“THE BOTTOM LINE IS –”
Whose bottom line? DO you really think that this is what the argument is about? This simplistic straw man you wish to engage a conservative with so you can tear it down?
DO you really think that conservatives have an argument wit your next two simplistic statements?
“By conserving energy we already produce, we’d have to produce less energy.
“Instead of depending on a finite source of depleting supplies of fossil fuels, we might be better off in the long run.”
There is so much wrong with your next statement that it alone could prove you are too stupid to ever have an intelligent discussion with. It’s condescending, its stupid, it is based on a false premise and it proves you are incapable of civil discourse.
“Shooting and bombing people who happen to live on top of “our” oil hasn’t worked out all that well, has it?”
Incapable of being civil for even one post you then throw in a nonsensical personal attack,
“According to our resident geologist, ol’ “Regular,” mountaintop-removal coal mining is not possible. So that’s not a worry.”
You finish your childish plea for attention with two nonsensical straw man questions,
“If global warming is not a threat, what’s the downside of creating a new energy infrastructure?
“If global warming is natural, what’s the downside of creating new technologies that’ll air condition our homes and offices?”
I use to think that you might be intelligent and merely acted stupid to bait conservatives on the Blog. I’m convinced that you are more than stupid, you are a failed radio commentator forced to live in a house your wife inherited in Iola, KS.
You are a fool. A bitter, crass, stupid fool.
If you really want a discussion on global warming, climate change or whatever, then why don’t you start by telling us what part of the Kyoto Treaty would have done anything to help the problem. Then maybe we can progress to the farce that will go on in Copenhagen next month.
The deficit for the fiscal year 2009 came in at more than $1.4 trillion—about 11.2 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That’s a bigger deficit than any seen in the past 60 years—only slightly larger in relative terms than the deficit in 1942. We are, it seems, having the fiscal policy of a world war, without the war. Yes, I know, the United States is at war in Afghanistan and still has a significant contingent of troops in Iraq. But these are trivial conflicts compared with the world wars, and their contribution to the gathering fiscal storm has in fact been quite modest (little more than 1.8 percent of GDP, even if you accept the estimated cumulative cost of $3.2 trillion published by Columbia economist Joseph Stiglitz in February 2008).
http://www.newsweek.com/id/224694
=====
Ouch. Wartime debt without the war. And the potential result of this explosion of debt is disasterous.
Read the rest.
And if you think Obamacare will save money, as claimed, I have a bridge I’m willing to sell . . .
“He has already withdrawn some 30 thousand troops from Iraq.”
30,000 scheduled to be withdrawn by Bush DoD, and 30,000 scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan.
So where is Obama going to to stop bombing people?
“Surprise surprise surprise.”
Here Capn. Democrats and republicans alike are commenting on the facts of the bill. Still trying to shoot the messenger I see, even when multiple sources are available:
“This is a complete cover-all-the-gaps federal health insurance for illegals, whether it be under Medicaid, the refundable tax credit or whether it be under their employers who would not be able to verify their employers unless we fix E-Verify,” said Rep. Steve King of Iowa, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration subcommittee.
How to deal with immigrants, both legal and illegal, remains one of the thorniest issues in the health care debate. In his address to a joint session of Congress in September, Mr. Obama specifically challenged Republicans who said his plans would extend coverage to illegal immigrants.
“This, too, is false — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,” Mr. Obama said. CNS news
“And the potential result of this explosion of debt is disasterous. ”
Liberals only care about the debt when republicans are piling it up.
Wow, “minutelady” –
Nothing but personal attacks.
“You are a …(fill in the blank).”
No substance.
No argument really from you.
Just run-of-the-mill WE Blog CON insults.
And you obviously worked long and hard on your post. So it’s important to you.
WE Blog CONs are getting sillier and sillier by the day.
You’re so much fun in your frenzies.
Maybe this is the change Obama was talking about:
“ACORN, the troubled community service organization, recently considered changing its name in a bid to rehabilitate its image, according to an internal memo obtained by POLITICO.
The document, which will be released Tuesday as part of a Republican congressional forum on ACORN, illustrates the internal deliberation the group has undergone after a year of embarrassing scandals.
The document was found in Dumpster outside of an ACORN office in San Diego, a House Republican aide said. Derrick Roach, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for statehouse in California, took thousands of documents last week from the trash outside the office. An ACORN spokesman confirmed the veracity of the document.”
cosmos_originally
Posted November 30, 2009 at 9:27 am | Permalink
‘No, BBC was not sent the stolen emails‘
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/no_bbc_was_not_sent_the_stole.
——————-
It was only after the same emails were published on a blog called Air Vent that Look North climate correspondent Mr Hudson owned up in his own blog to the fact he had also had the material.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html
———-
Yes they did receive them but then lied about it.
Will ACORN change its name to “Ho’sRus?”
Ron Paul still in the news:
Is libertarian rock star and Texas Republican Ron Paul going mainstream?
He’s got everyone from South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint to Minnesota moderate Democrat Collin Peterson to California liberal Barbara Boxer on his side in his audit-the-Fed crusade. He’s drawing liberal support in his push to rein in the cost of the war in Afghanistan. Senate candidates like Democratic Rep. Paul Hodes of New Hampshire are finding Dr. No’s populist economic anger to be useful in the campaign, echoing Paul’s criticism of the Federal Reserve.
Even Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is delivering backhanded compliments, taking credit for merely allowing a vote on Paul’s amendment to audit the central bank.
This convergence of odd bedfellows, and the economic angst that’s driving it all, is yet another signal that President Barack Obama is going to have more and more trouble keeping his traditional Democratic allies on his side as the economic debate continues. It seems that everyone is looking for something new to latch on to in the economic debate — even if those ideas belong to one of the more eccentric members of Congress.” Politico
wouldn’t that be a nice change?
Hmmm… Rage, is posting climate science emails that don’t implicate anyone in cover ups or fudging numbers. I’m not sure that proves a lot, Rage. Isn’t that a little like citing the days that Dennis Rader didn’t murder anyone to show what a great guy he was?
Good one Regular!
donndublin posted November 30, 2009 at 11:58 am
Yes they did receive them but then lied about it.
———————
So Hudson received the stolen emails on October 12, and the stolen emails contain emails written after October 12? Hmmmmm. . .
American_Way posted November 30, 2009 at 10:59 am
Enacting policies under the deception of GW, is still better for mankind – despite it being a lie.
———————–
AGW science is not a deception.
But perhaps American_Way can’t understand that, because too much trans fat has decreased the blood flow to his brain?
Hide the decline.
GIGO
Delete the emails.
Destroy the data.
Fudge the numbers.
Solid science?
recon_jones.pro
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline
Ignore the context.
Ignore reality.
Desperate AGW science deniers.
Perhaps Cosmos simply cannot read. I never posted what you said I did. Try again to insult me. It’s what you do best. You sure as heck are convincing anyone the sky is falling.
are not convincing anyone.
I apologize for my error.
HARRY_READ_ME.txt
I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO
and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I
know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh!
There truly is no end in sight.
HARRY_READ_ME.txt
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ’supposed’, I can make it up. So I have :-)
HARRY_READ_ME.txt
OH F**K THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m
hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.
Solid science?
Hide the decline
GIGO
soldevvb posted November 30, 2009 at 12:35 pm
HARRY_READ_ME.txt
————————–
Thank you soldevvb, for confirming my 12:34 pm post.
‘The CRU hack: Context‘
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
“HARRY_read_me.txt. This is a 4 year-long work log of Ian (Harry) Harris who was working to upgrade the documentation, metadata and databases associated with the legacy CRU TS 2.1 product, which is not the same as the HadCRUT data (see Mitchell and Jones, 2003 for details). The CSU TS 3.0 is available now (via ClimateExplorer for instance), and so presumably the database problems got fixed. Anyone who has ever worked on constructing a database from dozens of individual, sometimes contradictory and inconsistently formatted datasets will share his evident frustration with how tedious that can be.”
New CBO Report on Health Insurance Premiums under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as proposed by Senator Reid on 18 Nov 09.
Something for everyone with charts to see potential impact on the various types of coverage available by group.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf
Hide the decline.
GIGO
Delete the emails.
Destroy the data.
Fudge the numbers.
Solid science?
“Ignore the context.”
Ignore the GW lies?
cosmos_originally
Posted November 30, 2009 at 12:14 pm | Permalink
donndublin posted November 30, 2009 at 11:58 am
Yes they did receive them but then lied about it.
———————
So Hudson received the stolen emails on October 12, and the stolen emails contain emails written after October 12? Hmmmmm. . .
The BBC has become tangled in the row over the alleged manipulation of scientific data on global warming.
One of its reporters has revealed he was sent SOME of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia more than a month ago – but did nothing about them.
————–
Hmmmmm… aparently Cosmao doesn’t know the meaning of the word “some”.
Anyone who has ever worked on constructing a database from dozens of individual, sometimes contradictory and inconsistently formatted datasets will share his evident frustration with how tedious that can be.
————–
Probably the closest to “mea culpa” as cosMAO will ever get.
“You’re so much fun in your frenzies.”
I guess your too stupid to discuss Copenhagen then. What a surprise.
“Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion “as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,” according to a paper written two years ago to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world’s would-be environmental watchdog.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577827,00.html-
—————–
Praise be.
“Boxlock20? –
You kinda missed the point.
Global Warming is a tangential issue of energy policy.”—Monkey
No, I didn’t miss the point at all.
This whole, for all we know now, bogus AGW thing has been used to ensnare us in to a global liberal agenda, and it is now coming out that much of it is based on questionable, altered data. AGW and energy policy are inseparably intertwined.
And as Am_Way said, you seem to think that the end justifies the means, even to the point of lying and covering up and suppressing factual data. That speaks volumes for liberals on this subject.
“Anyone who has ever worked on constructing a database from dozens of individual, sometimes contradictory and inconsistently formatted datasets will share his evident frustration with how tedious that can be.””—cosmos
Translation:
We have a global liberal agenda to fulfill at all costs….it’s hard to accomplish with the truth….lying is easier. Let’s take the easy way to our objective, besides it make US rich.
“That speaks volumes for liberals on this subject.”
May I suggest if liberals will lie on this subject – doesn’t it speak volumes on any subject?
As CapnAmerica always says, “Once a liar – always a liar.” (or words to that effect)
Am I the only one who remembers liberals bragging just a couple of months ago – how Obama has done more in the middle east in eight months than Bush did in eight years?
LMAO!
“IRAN ANNOUNCES IT IS BUILDING TEN NEW NUCLEAR FACILITIES TO BE IN HARD TO TARGET LOCATIONS”
(Iran, in spite of Obama)
The CRU TS 2.1 Global Climate Dataset is comprised of 1224 monthly time-series of climate variables, for the period 1901-2002, covering the global land surface, excluding Antarctica, at 0.5 degrees resolution. The nine climate variables available through this dataset are: daily mean, minimum and maximum temperature, diurnal temperature range, precipitation, wet day frequency, frost day frequency, vapor pressure and cloud cover. This data has been produced by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of University of East Anglia (UEA), and reformatted by International Water Managment Institute (IWMI) for use in geospatial analysis using common GIS software.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The data is garbage. Any research done using this data is garbage.
But I guess we should assume that they only corrupted this data right? Anything else would be, well, dishonest now wouldn’t it?
Why would the CRU skew the output data then destroy the source data?
CorRUption
Climate change crap is a few wanting control of our lives and money.
Say again I forgot the link. All this irritates me.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/ipcc-climate-change-leaked-emails
donndublin,
Are you claiming that Hudson knew that the emails he received had been illegally obtained by hacking? If so what is your proof of that?
george posted November 30, 2009 at 1:26 pm
All this irritates me.
————————–
george, and the other AGW science deniers, are going to be very irritated, when carbon policies are enacted soon.
“That speaks volumes for liberals on this subject.”
“May I suggest if liberals will lie on this subject – doesn’t it speak volumes on any subject?”–Am_Way
Touché !
boxlock20 posted November 30, 2009 at 1:37 pm
“That speaks volumes for liberals on this subject.”
“May I suggest if liberals will lie on this subject – doesn’t it speak volumes on any subject?”–Am_Way
Touché !
—————————
Ironically, it’s the RepubliCONS who are lying about this subject, by taking the hacked files out of context, and by ignoring reality.
Yeah, cuz when you are skewing the data, fudging the numbers and destroying source data, you really really need the context.
What was the context re deleting emails cosmo?
What was the context of the programmer’s log? Oh yeah, HARRY_READ_ME.txt is the context. Kinda hard to spin that one.
;
; PLOTS ‘ALL’ REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry’s regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; “all band” timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
You email conspiracy types are starting to bore me.
cosmos_originally
Posted November 30, 2009 at 1:27 pm | Permalink
donndublin,
Are you claiming that Hudson knew that the emails he received had been illegally obtained by hacking? If so what is your proof of that?
————–
CosMao,
Are you claiming you have proof that the emails were hacked and not leaked by insiders?
If so what is your proof of that.
Phantom,
Carbon policies will very likely be enacted by the end of next year, and then the AGW science deniers will probably switch to a different issue.
“CosMao”….I like that donndublin
CosMao,
Just what do you hear as you listen to the credibility of your AGW world swirling down the toilet?
We would all like to know.
“Carbon policies will very likely be enacted by the end of next year”
Not so sure. Election November 2010.
The decision is not going to be made by the minority of extreme leftists who feel now is their moment in time to rush through as much radical left legislation as possible.
Cooler liberal heads will prevail. Just IMHO.
donndublin yet again runs away (changes the subject) when asked to provide proof supporting his posts.
American_Way,
What does “Election November 2010″ have to do with COP 16?
‘On Climate Data, Trends and Peer Review‘
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/more-on-the-climate-files-and-climate-trends/
Congress isn’t going to rush into legislation on passing anything agreed upon in Dec 2009 (after COP 16 finishes) with the lame duck legislature in XMAS recess. And perhaps just a few more calm voices of reason will join the 112th Congress.
Negotiations on any agreements in Mexico will take years.
Policies “enacted” in 2010? Nope.
cosmos_originally
Posted November 30, 2009 at 2:11 pm | Permalink
donndublin yet again runs away (changes the subject) when asked to provide proof supporting his posts.
—————-
CosMao, proves that when you point your finger at someone, you have three other fingers pointing back at you.
boxlock20 posted November 30, 2009 at 7:57 am
” 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 homogenized) data.”
Right cosmos, then why did they contrive, collude, slant or falsify, obstruct, and lie.
What confidence can anyone have in their “quality controlled and homogenized data”.
I’ll tell you…..NONE!
———————————–
‘CRU climate data already ‘over 95%’ available (28 November) ‘
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
” “It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.”
Andrew Revkin, New York Times
NY Times reporter (Andrew Revkin) whitewashes Climategate story he is part of.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17214
donndublin,
Are you claiming that Hudson knew on October 12th that the emails he received had been illegally obtained by hacking? If so what is your proof of that?
cosmao, You should ask Hudson that instead of trying to put words in my mouth.
So Cosmos, you were saying, what specific “carbon” legislation is going to be passed next year?
Enacted means?
“In his BBC blog two days ago, Hudson said: ‘I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world’s leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article “Whatever Happened To Global Warming”.’
—————-
Perhaps Hudson can’t express himself adequately.
Perhaps Hudson didn’t believe the emails were “illegally obtained by hacking” but were leaked by insiders.
The fact is Hudson and the BBC didn’t disclose the implication that the CRU was committing fraud.
November 30, 2009…9:56 am
A Myth About The Surface Temperature Record Analyses Perpetuated On Dot Earth By Andy Revkin
On the weblog Dot Earth today, there is text from Michael Schlesinger, a climatologist at the University of Illinois, that presents analyses of long term surface temperature trends from NASA, NCDC and Japan as if these are from independent sets of data from the analysis of CRU. Andy Revkin is perpetuating this myth in this write-up by not presenting the real fact that these analyses draw from the same original raw data. While they may use only a subset of this raw data, the overlap has been estimated as about 90-95%.
The unresolved problems with this surface data (which, of course, applies to all four locations) is reported in the peer reviewed paper:
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf
November 28, 2009…3:08 pm
Further Comment On The Surface Temperature Data Used In The CRU, GISS And NCDC Analyses
In my post
An Erroneous Statement Made By Phil Jones To The Media On The Independence Of The Global Surface Temperature Trend Analyses Of CRU, GISS And NCDC
I discussed that Phil Jones implied that the GISS and NCDC surface temperature data sets confirmed the robutness of the magnitude of the multi-decadal global average surface temperature trend, even if his CRU data was excluded, since GISS and NCDC provide independent assessments.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/further-comment-on-the-surface-temperature-data-used-in-the-cru-giss-and-ncdc-analyses/
Strange, I dont see any complaints about all the caps upthread… just sayin… LOL
This whole AGW crap is based on crappy data.
And when there is only a 0.8C change over the last 159 years or so it doesn’t take much skewing to make it completely bogus.
The sky isn’t falling even if it’s true, except now we find out it’s actually cooling…..oh well, either way this is all much about nothing unless there is another agenda being worked on.
Just heard that Clemmons told a child victim’s mother to trust him, he was Jesus. So apparently he didn’t convince Huckabe he’d found Jesus, but he was Jesus. How could Huck do anything but let him out, being a preacher and all.
Huck’s going to appear on O’reilly at 7:, think Bill will tear him a new one, or try and help him spin it, in the no spin zone?
Oh,oh, an Obama connection, here’s O’reilly’s hook!
” Clemmons was released from county jail less than a week ago with charges of second degree child rape still pending. (Why he was released when he was still wanted as a fugitive in Arkansas is a question someone will likely soon be called upon to answer.) Evidence collected during the child rape investigation paint a picture of a delusional person claiming he was the messiah, sexually assaulting young relatives, predicting the imminent end of the world and telling his wife and said young relatives that President Obama would soon visit to confirm that he was in fact the Messiah.
Taxpayer-funded medical care for illegal aliens is in the Marxist medical takeover now being debated in the Senate.
Obamanation LIED.
Also, the Senate bill would make leftist, baby-hating Bilious Sebelius the head of a grossly inflated federal HHS bureaucracy, deciding who could get what care, and what abortions taxpayers should pay for.
Obamanation LIED.
- – -
A novel technology involving use of adult bone marrow stem cells, developed by Hebrew University of Jerusalem researchers, has been applied to provide better and rapid healing for patients suffering from complicated bone fractures. To date, seven patients suffering from complicated fractures have been treated successfully with a combination of their own immuno-isolated MSCs and blood products. The entire procedure lasted a few hours and without any need to grow the cells for weeks in a laboratory.
Ethical, successful adult stem cell research continues to produce startling new cures and beneficial treatments every year, which are underreported for political reasons. Meanwhile Obamanation has diverted your tax money away from it and into useless, unethical embryonic stem cell research, which has never even cured a mouse, and cannot be stable or safe enough for human trials for decades, more likely never.
Climate gate will not go away. Rush talks about it here.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113009/content/01125113.guest.html
Yeah that’s how I KNOW it will go away. Fatmouth Rush can’t shut up about it.
Therefor, the very same people who already denied human caused global warming will become even further entrenched in their delusion and thus FURTHER marginalized out of the mainstream of science and public discourse!
As if you are a real intellectual and influential guy there BlueJay, well respected in the community and successful in all your endeavors.
Cough cough!
If climate researchers lied like Rush does… THAT would be a story.
boxlock20 posted November 30, 2009 at 4:09 pm
“This whole AGW crap is based on crappy data.”
————————————
Actually, AGW is based on science done since the 1800’s — Arrhenius, radiative forcings from “greenhouse” gases, etc.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
“And when there is only a 0.8C change over the last 159 years or so it doesn’t take much skewing to make it completely bogus.”
————————————
Poor boxlock20 can’t realize that most of the warming has been observed in the upper Northern latitudes, just like the first climate models projected. It’d be impossible to “skew” those readings that much.
And the warming since the mid-1970’s cannot be explained by natural factors — natural plus human-added factors are required to explain the observations.
“The sky isn’t falling even if it’s true, except now we find out it’s actually cooling…..oh well, either way this is all much about nothing unless there is another agenda being worked on.”
————————————
The sky is “falling” — AGW is cooling the stratosphere, by trapping the heat energy at lower altitudes.
The recent El Nino will probably help average global temperatures exceed the 1998/2005 readings next year, even if the current solar minimum continues.
Poor boxlock20 is unable to distinguish between science, and policy (agenda).
DavidB posted November 30, 2009 at 7:01 pm
If climate researchers lied like Rush does… THAT would be a story.
————————–
AGW science deniers lie like Rush does, but they’ve been doing it since the 1980’s, so it’s an old story.
‘Antarctic melt may push sea levels to 1.4 metres: study ‘
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iUQUHqrFNSnyGROkjhbTqf2dOWwQ
2009 global temperatures ties another recent year as the fifth warmest year on record.
David: I asked you before to please stop posting from the future. It’s not fair. It must be at least mid January 2010 where you are, since Nov numbers haven’t even been compiled yet, and Dec hasn’t happened.
DavidB
Posted November 30, 2009 at 7:26 pm | Permalink
2009 global temperatures ties another recent year as the fifth warmest year on record.
========================
Except for the Medieval Warm period and of coure the numbers you cite are from a compromised CRU report in which the entire world has lost confidence.
Please do try again…
outlander,
So where do you believe that 2009 will be ranked, if not 5th warmest?
Post your guess, so we can compare it to the final result in mid-January.
I’m flattered cosmos, you seem to devote an inordinate length of time posting back to me.
Oh wow!
But cosmos, don’t hold your breath waiting for your ‘the sky is falling’ scenario.
You are wasting your life, and even if what you say is true, and I have no faith in that, you will be lucky to be fossilized in stone by that time, and the rest of the world will have adjusted just fine.
What so funny, except that it isn’t because it’s so predictable from a liberal socialist agenda, is that the total answer is to tax everything that drives the economy. What a bad joke!
Sorry Cosmos, I don’t know. 1/6th of the year is left to account for, and my crystal ball is cloudy.
Hey, maybe you could ask the climate modelers.
David and Cosmos I read of your denials all day long and am amazed that you just keep quoting ‘facts’ obtained from doctored reports. How can anyone be so dense?
Just for Chas who is just as dense when it comes to what Obama says –
“Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants could receive health care coverage from their employers under the bills winding their way through Congress, despite President Obama’s explicit pledge that illegal immigrants would not benefit.
The House bill mandates, and the Senate bill strongly encourages, businesses to extend health care coverage to all employees. But the bills do not have exemptions to screen out illegal immigrants, who usually obtain jobs by using false identities and are indistinguishable from legal workers. ”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/30/health-bills-fail-to-block-illegals-from-coverage/
Chas just because Obama says it doesn’t make it so. You can address your apology to the house member with enough moxie to tell the prez he lies.
By Jennifer Harper
A fleeting few moments with a former vice president now goes for $1,209.
“Meet Al Gore in Copenhagen.”
An official announcement from this fair Danish city says all: the former vice president is getting star treatment when he arrives with an entire swarm of green-minded gadflies for the United Nation’s week-long global warming extravaganza that begins Dec. 7.
“Have you ever shaken hands with an American vice president? If not, now is your chance. Meet Al Gore in Copenhagen during the UN Climate Change Conference,” notes the Danish tourism commission, which is helping Mr. Gore promote “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis,” his newest book about global warming in all its alarming modalities.
“Tickets are available in different price ranges for the event. If you want it all, you can purchase a VIP ticket, where you get a chance to shake hands with Al Gore, get a copy of Our Choice and have your picture taken with him. The VIP event costs DKK 5,999 and includes drinks and a light snack.”
How much is that in American dollars? The currency conversion says all too: 5,999 Danish kroners is equivalent to $1,209.
“If you do not want to spend that much money, but still want to hear Al Gore speak about his latest book about climate challenges, you can purchase general tickets, ranging in price from DKK 199 – 1,499 depending on where in the room you want to sit,” the practical Danes advise for the Dec. 16 event.
“There will be large screens, so that everyone will get a good view.”
But wait, there’s more.
President Obama journeys to Copenhagen Dec. 9 with an entourage that includes Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, along with Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley and Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner.
“For the first time, the U.S. delegation will have a U.S. Center at the conference, providing a unique and interactive forum to share our story with the world,” the White House press office announced last week.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/01/a-fleeting-few-moments-with-a-former-vice-presiden/
——————–
While the facts are being pushed back under the rug with a few stragglers hanging out algore is charging money to shake his hand!
Our pinheads in DC are going to the convention pretending that nothing has happened and all is right in the scientific world.
Can Obama get any dumber? Oh I guess I shouldn’t ask that.
Global warming scam is goint to be hard to stop. Gibbs knows nothing except what the Obama adminstration wants to do. The UN should drop to whole thing.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/69797-gibbs-despite-research-dispute-climate-change-is-happening
okobserver posted November 30, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Our pinheads in DC are going to the convention pretending that nothing has happened and all is right in the scientific world.
————————————-
Officials worldwide are going to COP 15 correctly knowing that the illegal hack just took comments out-of-context, and that all is right in the scientific world.
boxlock20,
Time will tell.
And I hope you enjoy listening in the future to your grandchildren, and others, complain about our too slow response to the AGW problem.
I’m sure Boxlox’s grandchildren will be shocked about how incredibility simplistic and inaccurate the AGW pseudo science was and look at it like some sort of medieval alchemy.
Right Reg., and they will be thankful that I saved for their college educations and didn’t worry about such dribble.
They would question my sanity for not fighting such a ridiculous agenda that resulted in higher taxes and a ruined economy where their quality of life was compromised.
Perhaps by the time boxlock20’s grandchildren are adults, Regular will have published his scientific paper refuting the AGW theory? /sarcasm OFF
The climategaters will be just another small pinhead faction to join up with the tea (glue?) baggers.
Except for the fact most of the climategaters already are tea baggers.
Who could’ve known O’reilly would soft soap Huckabee? Just imagine if another former gov. of Arkansas would’ve made that pardon!
“O’Reilly Pardons Fox Commentator Mike Huckabee For Commuting Suspected Cop Killer’s Sentence
The Washington State cop killer should be a slam dunk of rage for Bill O’Reilly: A governor commutes a criminal’s sentence, then the guy goes and kills four cops. Except that governor was fellow Fox commentator Mike Huckabee.
Yesterday morning, four cops were shot dead in a Washington State coffee shop. Police think it was Maurice Clemmons, a man whose 108 year prison sentence for burglary was commuted nine years ago in Arkansas by then-governor Huckabee.
O’Reilly starts out tough: “A lot of people want an explanation: This was a bad Hombre, and you let him out. Why?” But as Huckabee rolls out his defense, wrapped around a rambling explanation of the American legal system, O’Reilly sort of tunes out :
The post prison transfer board, the process, and I’ll be very brief about this, but to understand: They recommended to me, as governor for his commutation, which didn’t release him, it simply cut his sentence to 47 years. That would give him parole eligibility. That was the commutation. I’m responsible for that, and it’s not something I’m happy about at this particular moment
It’s almost too obvious to ask, but we will anyway: What if this governor had been someone who doesn’t appear in a show a few hours earlier on the same network as Bill O’Reilly? Would O’Reilly have heard this explanation and then said: “It’s not your fault, Governor. I’m not saying it’s your fault. I don’t think anyone here is thinking it’s your fault.” Would he have made no mention of Huckabee’s extraordinary record of pardoning all sorts of criminals (likely due to his religious beliefs) as governor of Arkansas? Or pivoted so quickly into blaming the Washington judges —who at worst were the last failed link in a years-long chain of missed opportunities? Maybe his hatred of paroles and his love of mandatory sentences would have made a vein-popping appearance.”
American_Way
Posted November 30, 2009 at 1:13 pm | Permalink
Am I the only one who remembers liberals bragging just a couple of months ago – how Obama has done more in the middle east in eight months than Bush did in eight years?
LMAO!
“IRAN ANNOUNCES IT IS BUILDING TEN NEW NUCLEAR FACILITIES TO BE IN HARD TO TARGET LOCATIONS”
(Iran, in spite of Obama)
——————————-
What AmWay?
10 more nuclear plants in Iran IS more!
Interesting fact on the man that could’ve been the repub Pardoner-In-Chief, just think if he’d been pres. the whole country would’ve been his oyster!
” According to ABC News, Huckabee granted pardons and commutations to approximately 12 convicted murderers.
A study by the Arkansas Leader showed that between 1996 and 2004, Huckabee helped to free more Arkansas prisoners than were freed from all of Arkansas’ six neighboring states–combined.
In 2004, The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette concluded that “9 percent of the prisoners who benefited from Huckabee’s clemencies ended up in prison again.”
Huckabee’s pardons and commuted sentences as governor earned him extra attention during his bid for the Republican nomination in the 2008 presidential race. In 2007, Huffington Post published documents that contradicted Huckabee’s story about the release of convicted serial-rapist Wayne Dumond in 1999. After Dumond was released from prison, he raped and murdered a 39-year-old woman and allegedly raped and murdered a pregnant 23-year-old woman before he was arrested and returned to prison.
While on the campaign trail, Huckabee has claimed that he supported the 1999 release of Wayne Dumond because, at the time, he had no good reason to believe that the man represented a further threat to the public. Thanks to Huckabee’s intervention, conducted in concert with a right-wing tabloid campaign on Dumond’s behalf, Dumond was let out of prison 25 years before his sentence would have ended.
“There’s nothing any of us could ever do,” Huckabee said… “None of us could’ve predicted what [Dumond] could’ve done when he got out.”
But the confidential files show that Huckabee was provided letters from several women who had been sexually assaulted by Dumond and who indeed predicted that he would rape again – and perhaps murder – if released.
This REALLY is becoming high comedy.
Regular post as himself and then posts back to himself under his alter nic bawkslots.
I think the Eagle editors need to SERIOUSLY consider better vetting this forum. I’m not talking about banning IP’s that’s easy to get around.
I’m talking personal vetting by the editors. Put bawkslots, JimJohnson, and Anti in the same room with “Regular”. I want to see “minutelady” in the same room with HLP.
You haven’t posted as to the “hits” to this forum in a LONG time Phillip. That tells me you’ve nothing to be proud of. Let the blog police itself in the form of putting faces to names so we can do away with those who abuse this forum to vent their multiple personalities.
#
JimJohnson
Posted November 30, 2009 at 10:04 pm | Permalink
What AmWay?
10 more nuclear plants in Iran IS more!
=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It’s a time honored tradition in Iran.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/ShahNuclearPlants.jpg
BlueJay
Posted November 30, 2009 at 10:36 pm |
Let the blog police itself in the form of putting faces to names so we can do away with those who abuse this forum to vent their multiple personalities.
————————————
BJ is off his medication today.
Or maybe too much hooch.
Or his blow-up doll blew-up.
BJ is off his medication today.
Nah he says he cant get health iunsurance
Hmmm… Rage, is posting climate science emails that don’t implicate anyone in cover ups or fudging numbers. I’m not sure that proves a lot, Rage. Isn’t that a little like citing the days that Dennis Rader didn’t murder anyone to show what a great guy he was?
Uhm,no. If you want a valid Rader analogy, try this:
Say some misinformed Christian claims that Rader committed his heinous acts because “he didn’t get enough religion!” and used some out-of-context statements to “prove” it.
Let’s say even further that they show that Rader missed church on several occasions.
The proposition is easily refuted by noting that Rader in fact attended church regularly and was so involved in his church that he was named church president!
The point being, for all the throroughly ridiculous allegations being thrown out (and I note with ironic amusement Sol’s comment about databases–I guess it’s a conspiracy if it’s someone elss!). But if you look over the actual facts of what was said and done, and just how little a part it had in their work (keep in mind, 1000 emails over 13 years must be a drop in the bucket), then there is no conspiracy, fraud etc. that some seem determine to hoke up.
Some intemperate statements were made–in private–but the supposed examples of professional misconduct simply do not stand up when you, ya know, look at the facts.
Realclimate.com provided the context at Cosmos’ links, but you don’t have to take their word for it. Simply look at the actual facts, such as the suppopsedly “hidden” decline that’s been public record for 11 years.
And anyone who’s ever done data modeling knows just how messy that can get, particularly if you’re dealing with an uncooperative natural world. A scientist who says he is applying an “artificial correction” isn’t whispering a dark secret; he’s acknowledging limits to the model, and more work needed to be done and–furthermore–the limits of such models would be far from secret.
And, curiously enough, only the energy-industry fringe scientists and others outside the field seem to view it otherwise.
Show me a mainstream climate scientist who thinks malfeasance took place and maybe I’ll take this nonsense seriously.
If the CONs had any sense of history, the last thing they would brand Cosmos with is “CosMao”.
Probably no other leader in modern times was LESS CONCERNED about environmental damage of his policies than Mao. He encouraged farmers to slaughter wild animals like the nearly extinct Chinese tiger. He once said famously about China’s big population, “the more the better.” The East may have been red under Mao, but he turned it yellow with sulphur dioxide.
CapnAmerica posted December 1, 2009 at 12:59 am
If the CONs had any sense of history, the last thing they would brand Cosmos with is “CosMao”.
—————
CapnAmerica,
The CONS don’t seem to have any sense of anything.
Phantom posted November 30, 2009 at 9:45 pm
The climategaters will be just another small pinhead faction to join up with the tea (glue?) baggers.
—————————-
It’ll be funny when some of the climategaters finally figure out that they’ve been deceived by the out-of-context emails, and stupid spin.
Even funnier will be the ones who don’t figure it out, and continue to flail around like idiots.
“If the CONs had any sense of history, the last thing they would brand Cosmos with is “CosMao”.
Probably no other leader in modern times was LESS CONCERNED about environmental damage of his policies than Mao. ”
But Mao was ‘VERY CONCERNED’ with COMPLETE CONFORMITY with his political agenda and therein is the similarity.
Mao’s policies and political purges from 1949 to 1975 are widely believed to have caused the deaths of between 50 to 70 million people.
Kind of like a asinine cap and tax scheme.
“Boxlock20″ criticizes –
“COMPLETE CONFORMITY with his political agenda and therein is the similarity.”
Sort of like the Repubic Party’s “Purity Pledge?”
When asked by Warwick Hughes for this data, Dr. Jones famously replied:
Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
__________________________________________________
Science you have to hide. Doesn’t sound much like true scientific methodology to me. Sounds more like cooked books don’t want to be uncovered.
Warwick Hughes does not do science. He was a founding member of New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
NZCSC very incorrectly used temperature measurements from different sites as if they had come from the same site.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/11/hacked-files-could-raise-doubts-about-global-warming/#comment-698526
Warwick Hughes also believes the ridiculous CO2 claims made by E G Beck.
‘More Nonsense about CO2‘
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
A good resource on Climate Change denial –
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
boxlock20 posted December 1, 2009 at 7:22 am
But Mao was ‘VERY CONCERNED’ with COMPLETE CONFORMITY with his political agenda and therein is the similarity.
—————————-
Where’s the similarity to me? I don’t control the U.S. government.
Unlike boxlock20, I can distinguish the very obvious difference between science, and government policy.
I support reasonable carbon taxes, that reflect the hidden costs of carbon fuels — but so do many other Americans. Are all of them also “Mao’s” in boxlock20’s fantasy world?
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
Attention AGW alarmists. Here’s THE guide on how to argue against the “deniers”. It covers all topics; well, except how to explain away the Climategate emails (we’re still working on that one). Everything else you need to know. Simply click on the topic and we’ll tell you what to say. Even provides hyperlinks to throw down. You, yes you, can be an authority without even knowing a how to spell “troposphere”.
T-shirt sold separately.
Re climategate emails.
‘The CRU hack: Context‘
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
“Unprecedented” Data Purge At CRU
“I support reasonable carbon taxes”–cosmos
Right, ha! WHY?
Why drive up the costs of everything. If other fuels are better, or other energy sources, bring them on without artificial costs being added to what we have.
Besides, the “science” of AGW is now very suspect…remember the “AGW scientists” feel it necessary to lie, fudge, skew, suppress, and destroy data. Doesn’t sound like a very honest group to me or one very confident in making their case without cheating.
Those aren’t scientists at all.
Face it cosmos, you and your ‘great peer reviewed climate scientists’ have egg all over your faces and are looking pretty silly right about now.
Scientists don’t need to be dishonest.
The realclimate / climategate / corruption connection
Put realclimate in the search bar on the top right.
Real science is reproducible. Real scientists allow their experiments/findings to be reviewed and duplicated.
Why did CRU delete the original data?
boxlock20 posted December 1, 2009 at 8:47 am
Besides, the “science” of AGW is now very suspect
————————–
Only to people like boxlock20, who live in a fantasy world.
Hidden costs are real costs.
‘CRU climate data already ‘over 95%’ available (28 November) ‘
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
SolDevVB
Posted December 1, 2009 at 8:46 am | Permalink
“Unprecedented” Data Purge At CRU
=======================
‘Who destroyed the tapes and when did they do it?’
Oh wait, that was another story – but, this one when know when and now we need to know why and by whom.
Looks to me very much like a coverup.
Perhaps this was the reason for the leaked emails and data – someone at CRU grew a conscience.
but, this one
whenwe know when‘CRU climate data already ‘over 95%’ available (28 November) ‘
Really? The uncorrupted original data is available? Or are you referring to the cooked numbers?
soldevvb
Are you suggesting that GHCN “cooked” the numbers?
cosmo,
Really? The uncorrupted original data is available? Or are you referring to the cooked numbers?
soldevvb,
You’re clueless about climate science.
Are you also unable to click on links?
cosmo,
You are clueless about the corruption in the CRU. Are you unable to answer simple questions?
Is the original source data available or only the cooked “value”[sic] added data?
soldevvb,
Read the thread.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/11/open-thread-1130-2/#comment-699547
Cosmos do you takes meds regularly to stay this delusional or have you always been this hard headed?
okobserver,
What’s “delusional” about GHCN’s data? It exists.
Fairy tales exist also but the info in them isn’t real. What is so hard for you to understand about this. The books were cooked. The fix was in. You have been taken for a fool. Stand up and push back. Tell algore and company that you will no longer be a shill for their propoganda.
So then cosmo, this is a lie?
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.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
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 when the CRU moved to a new building.”
okobserver,
What “books were cooked”?
The temperature data collected worldwide? The borehole data? The ice core data? The satellite data? The cooling stratosphere? The observed changes in vegetation?
soldevvb,
Is this a lie?
‘CRU climate data already ‘over 95%’ available (28 November) ‘
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
” “It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.”
soldevvb,
Is this your source? You left out a relevant part.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
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.”
Cooked data, made up data, synthetic corrections, deleted source data, no documentation, no data integrity, no change control…
The list goes on and on. And here is little cosmo, still pleading her case blindly. She even has the audacity to call into question other’s intelligence.
When you look at what she supports, even after the curtain has been drawn back on the fraud, she is still in there showing her blind faith and ignorance.
Seems “pathetic” is too mild a word.
“We do not hold the original raw data but only the value[sic]-added
Uhm, yeah cosmo. Welcome to the party. They cook the numbers then destroy the source data. Not exactly scientific is it?
“Deleted source data”?
‘CRU climate data already ‘over 95%’ available (28 November) ‘
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
And I’m still waiting for okobserver’s answer.
soldevvb,
Are you claiming that CRU also deleted the original raw source data that it did not have, and that is mainly owned by the NMS’s?
I give up cosmo. You are too stupid to see the fraud you have supported for far too long. You can twist and spin any which way you like.
You were told you were stupid for believing the fraud before this discovery. To continue to believe, support, and spin spin spin is just indescribable.
I hope you have a good shrink. When the last gasp of the AGW fraud is heard, there will be nothing left in your life.
Good luck in life cosmo. Hope you seek and find help.
soldevvb,
Where’s the fraud?
CRU did not own the original raw source data — it was owned by the governments and other groups that collected it.
solevvb, boxlock20, okobserver, and some other AGW science deniers here will probably be in the group that never figure it out.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/11/open-thread-1130-2/#comment-699727
Cosmos I apologize for answering any of your posts. You are a pathetic excuse for a person who has been completely brain washed. No original thought will ever cross your threshold will it?
Don’t wait any longer for my answer. The world knows the books were cooked. The world knows the fix was in. Who ever heard of trashing supporting data for a scientific conclusion. Ridiculous.
You and the crooks who perpetrated this fraud are in the minority and unfortunately the MSM is aiding the prez who is in trying to make himself a legacy. Truth will out.
Have a great day.