Climategate 2.0: Santer angry over not being able to silence skeptics

[AmericanFirst]

Here we go again. Another round of denial from a bunch of willfully ignorant knownothing assholes. Sorry boys, the entire scientific community of the whole world is stating that AGW is real and already having serious consequences.

Virtually every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world states that AGW is real. Sure, you point to a few scientists that state otherwise. And you can find the same number that believe in the Creationist version of the beginning. More than likely the same people.

Nothing but a lie, period. People lie all the time and make it look truthful, look at the idiots on this board.

 

[candycorn]

I may be off base, but seems to me the story is that the scientists that were global warmists were under enormous pressure, for both science and payroll, to publish 'proof.' It wasn't there, at least not yet. So they went with models that would look acceptable, afterall, that's what was wanted.

They're burned now.

That doesn't mean that pollutants aren't causing change, but the ability to prove it has now been ramped up.

I think that there are many people who look at science as having some crystal ball to predict exactly what is going to happen.

I know of, conservatively, 2 dozen persons who have died from cancer. Some went in a few months, some in a few years. Some lingered for several years while others actually had a remission prior to passing.

When you take the science of a disease in one person and it can't be determined how long that patient will live inside a few years, one could imagine how difficult it is to predict a global event.

 

[Si modo]

Did anyone know that Earth day was founded on the 100TH Birthday of the communism leader Lenin? I don't believe this to be a coincidence.

Apparently Green is the new Red.

Watermelon men - green on the outside, red on the inside.

 

[tinydancer]

Did anyone know that Earth day was founded on the 100TH Birthday of the communism leader Lenin? I don't believe this to be a coincidence.

Apparently Green is the new Red.

Well after all they are watermelons, green on the outside and red on the inside.

Now to Earth Day. Ira the Unicorn killer started Earth Day, killed his lover by beating her to death, composted her in a trunk in his closet, was represented by Arlen Specter let out on a pittance of a bail and lived for years in France til Bill Clinton bless his soul really did drag the bastard back to jail time in the States.

Earth day is not a happy day. Not if you believe in truth.

 

[tinydancer]

I may be off base, but seems to me the story is that the scientists that were global warmists were under enormous pressure, for both science and payroll, to publish 'proof.' It wasn't there, at least not yet. So they went with models that would look acceptable, afterall, that's what was wanted.

They're burned now.

That doesn't mean that pollutants aren't causing change, but the ability to prove it has now been ramped up.

I think that there are many people who look at science as having some crystal ball to predict exactly what is going to happen.

I know of, conservatively, 2 dozen persons who have died from cancer. Some went in a few months, some in a few years. Some lingered for several years while others actually had a remission prior to passing.

When you take the science of a disease in one person and it can't be determined how long that patient will live inside a few years, one could imagine how difficult it is to predict a global event.

If you can't get a freaking 3 day weather report accurate who the hell should believe a 50 year forcast?

Like I'm booking planting the garden in 2019 Al Gore on May 14th.

Seriously, anyone who does believe in this shit give your head a freaking shake and stop going to your tarot card reader.

 

[FactFinder]

Climategate 2.0: Santer angry over not being able to silence skeptics

Get over it. the skeptics won. Rightfully so I might add.

 

[OODA_Loop]

find me one scientific society, one major university, or one national academy of science that states that AGW is a hoax. Or even incorrect.

You cannot do that, because such does not exist, even in outer Slobovia.

we are in constant climate change, warming and otherwise

there isn't a sufficient chronological span of sampling to absolutely determine natural vs man made carbon culpability over the millenia

 

[Annie]

I may be off base, but seems to me the story is that the scientists that were global warmists were under enormous pressure, for both science and payroll, to publish 'proof.' It wasn't there, at least not yet. So they went with models that would look acceptable, afterall, that's what was wanted.

They're burned now.

That doesn't mean that pollutants aren't causing change, but the ability to prove it has now been ramped up.

I think that there are many people who look at science as having some crystal ball to predict exactly what is going to happen.

I know of, conservatively, 2 dozen persons who have died from cancer. Some went in a few months, some in a few years. Some lingered for several years while others actually had a remission prior to passing.

When you take the science of a disease in one person and it can't be determined how long that patient will live inside a few years, one could imagine how difficult it is to predict a global event.

Huh? Now equating cancer and climate change. You've lost the argument.

 

[The Gadfly]

This, people, is what happens when you prostitute science for the sake of political ideology. The frauds have now been caught repeatedly, falsifying and manipulating studies for political ends. Their credibility is shot; GAME OVER!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement
Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance

Clearly.

are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural

OMG! Is this a real statement? Hilarious!

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly.

MWP and the Little Ice Age is what they mean by relatively stable?

Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity,

Wasn't productivity higher during the MWP?
Why wouldn't longer growing seasons increase productivity?

If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century.

Unless they're willing to support a huge increase in nuclear power, they're never going to make it.

Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government.

Nukes yes, bigger government no.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused.

When the climategate scientists control the peer review process, that's not a big surprise.

In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

What percentage is caused by human activities and how much is natural?
What will the average temperature be in 10 years based on the projected increase in CO2?
When that prediction doesn't pan out, how much money will we have wasted on green energy scams?

 

[Annie]

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused.

When the climategate scientists control the peer review process, that's not a big surprise.

In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

What percentage is caused by human activities and how much is natural?
What will the average temperature be in 10 years based on the projected increase in CO2?
When that prediction doesn't pan out, how much money will we have wasted on green energy scams?

Yep. Making the data fit the hypothesis. Wrongo.

Real tragedy, if they are really correct and screwing everything up by lies to fit parameters.

 

[Lakhota]

Media Already Botching Reports On Hacked Climate Emails | Media Matters for America

 

[bripat9643]

I hate to break it to you, Rocks, but there isn't one shred of science in that statement. What you need to understand about these scientific associations is that they are lobbying groups. They are populated by political hacks. The last thing they are going to do is piss off the bureaucrats who allocate funds to their members.

Your post proves nothing aside from the fact that you are supremely gullible.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement
Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

 

[bripat9643]

Northerntruthseeker: The Global Warming Hoax: The IPCC Consensus On Climate Change Was Phoney, Says IPCC Insider

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider
Lawrence Solomon June 13, 2010 – 8:50 am

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.

Financial Post
[email protected]
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the author of The Deniers.

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

 

[bripat9643]

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.26

A new study using methods endorsed by the Al Gore crowd concludes that there is no “consensus” among scientists that man is contributing to global warming. Also can 31,000 scientists be wrong?

One of the most often cited pieces of evidence that man is causing global warming is a study by Naomi Oreskes that showed 75% of the examined scientific abstracts either explicitly or implicitly backed a view that man was contributing to global warming. This “consensus view” has been repeated ad nauseam, ad infinitum and is behind Al Gore's “the case is closed” statements. The Naomi Oreskes study was based on a keyword search of a database of scientific studies. This keyword search found 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. Of those 928 abstracts 75% explicitly or implicitly backed the “consensus view” of anthropogenic climate change (or man-made global warming).

Of course there has been a lot of criticism of this study in that it is not at all scientific even though its purpose is to review scientific studies. To begin with the keyword search only looked for “global climate change”, if your viewpoint doesn't believe in global warming you may not use that term. Certain terminology is used by people if they have a certain viewpoint, other terms may be used if they have the opposite viewpoint. There were other studies that challenged the “consensus view” that showed as few as 30% of the studies supported the “anthropogenic climate change” view.

Since many of the studies found in Naomi Oreskes' survey are now nearly 15 years old a new survey was done using the same techniques. By examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte repeated Oreskes' study. The new study found 528 papers that matched the search results for the period 2004 through February 2007. Of those only 7% gave an explicit endorsement of the “consensus view”. Extending the scope to those that gave either an explicit or implicit endorsement the study found 45% in support of the “consensus view”. Even more striking is that a majority (54%) now either reject the “consensus view” outright or are now neutral regarding anthropogenic climate change. You can read more regarding this new study at DailyTech.com.

Also refuting the “consensus view”, and almost never mentioned in the popular news media, was a petition signed by over 17,000 31,000 scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, against the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Here is part of what these scientists signed their names to:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.​

This was not an anonymous survey, these scientists put their reputations on the line and put their name beside their opinion. You can read more about this at the Global Warming Petition. One needs to keep in mind the following regarding this petition:

over 2/3rds of the signatories had advanced degrees,
2,660 were physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists
5,017 were scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences


Hardly a bunch of “flat earth” types as the global warming mass hysteria crowd likes to call anyone that dares to challenge their scientifically weak viewpoint that man is destroying the planet by causing global warming.

So the next time you hear the media throw out the terms “consensus view” or “scientific consensus” regarding man-made global warming (or CO2 causing global warming) you'll know they either haven't done their homework or they've drank the Al Gore Kool-Aid and don't want to report the truth.

UPDATE (6/10/2008): The petition now has over 31,000 verified signatures.

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

 

[bripat9643]

A bunch of unproven and unprovable flap-doodle that credulous cretins like you believe.

Ah yes, the real 'Conservative' position. All science is flapdoodle.

What a silly fool you are, Rabid.

Anthropogenic global warming isn't science. It's the green religion.

 

[bripat9643]

Global Warming Hoax: Antarctic Sea Ice for March 2010 Significantly Greater Than 1980

Antarctic Sea Ice for March 2010 Significantly Greater Than 1980
Admin, Tuesday 06 April 2010 - 2332 // comment: 65 // printer friendly // Font Size - Increase / Decrease / Reset

Contrary to media reports Antarctic sea ice continues to expand. Ice totals for March 2010 are significantly higher than 1980. The main stream media concentrates on a couple of small areas of the Antarctic in order to scare you in to believing that Antarctica is melting, when in fact its gaining ice.

From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado

Antarctic Sea Ice for March 1980 and 2010

Extent Concentration
2010 4.0 million sq km 2.6 million sq km
1980 3.5 million sq km 2.0 million sq km

Sea Ice Extent in March 2010 is over 14% greater than in 1980
Sea Ice Concentration in March 2010 is 30% greater than in 1980!

Since measurements began in 1979 antarctic sea ice has continued to expand, contrary to what the news media would have you believe. We bring this information to you month after month and still there is no sign of the main stream media picking up on the story. They continue to discuss the relatively small areas of the Western Antarctic Peninsula that are melting due to changes in ocean currents.

You may have heard that some of the “computer models” predicted increases in antarctic ice, but they predicted increased “interior ice” due to increased snow fall. None of the models predicted increased sea ice around the antarctic. Yet that is what we have, more sea ice in March 2010 than what we had in March of 1980. This is highly significant yet hardly anyone in the main stream media (MSM) is talking about it.

Sea ice is much different than interior ice. Some of the computer models predicted increased ice over the interior of antarctic. If you've ever lived in the extreme cold temperature regions you already understand the reason why. When it gets very cold the air become drier and it snows less, as the temperature warms towards freezing it actually snows more. Since the antarctic rarely even gets close to freezing its understandable that warming would cause more snow fall. Over time compacted snow would lead to more ice. But that is not what is happening here. We're seeing increases in “sea ice”, this ice is over the ocean. Sea ice is caused by colder temperatures, not by increased snow fall. But we hear nothing from either the MSM or the scientific community. Especially compared to the out 6%-7% decrease at the arctic (this isn't year over year, this is a 6% decline since 1980!).

This continues a long trend of increasing sea ice that has been noted here for several months.

 

[bripat9643]

The claim that all the scientists in the world support the warmist AGW theory is the ultimate lie.

Still, one junior high school teacher who teaches science and softball may be right and all of the other scientists in the world may be wrong.

If I sound like a 9/11 Twoofer, lets get something straight. I don't. I do sound like Rick Perry though. And to think some dumbfucks are considering voting for that guy...

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, find a paid off gang of political hacks who support cutting their power and influence down to size.

It would be easier to find an honest politician.

"Scientific consensus" is bullshit.
Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton

Come on, you ignorant asshole, find me one scientific society, one major university, or one national academy of science that states that AGW is a hoax. Or even incorrect.

You cannot do that, because such does not exist, even in outer Slobovia.