Climatology fraud, what will be their sentences?

[BlindBoo]

Corrupt Science : Evidence of Massive Climatology Fraud Exposed | ARCHITECT AFRICA | ARCHITECTURE

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes

The Flathead Society - Page 1 - Cal Thomas - Townhall Conservative

Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming


The link below exposes the back door global socialism motive of the 'professional' environmentalists...

Global Warming Equals Socialism

I wonder what the legal sentencing will be for these criminals? The tax cost globally to the human community from their fraudulent back door global socialist scheme certainly has to be measured in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. This would make their crime the single biggest premeditated crime against all of humanity in the entire history of recorded human existence.
What would you expect for sentencing for this crime these people did to us???

First, I would expect someone to be charged with a crime. Then if convicted they should recieve an appropriate sentance.

Or did you just want to skip that part and go straight to the hanging?

 

[candycorn]

Corrupt Science : Evidence of Massive Climatology Fraud Exposed | ARCHITECT AFRICA | ARCHITECTURE

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes

The Flathead Society - Page 1 - Cal Thomas - Townhall Conservative

Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming


The link below exposes the back door global socialism motive of the 'professional' environmentalists...

Global Warming Equals Socialism

I wonder what the legal sentencing will be for these criminals? The tax cost globally to the human community from their fraudulent back door global socialist scheme certainly has to be measured in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. This would make their crime the single biggest premeditated crime against all of humanity in the entire history of recorded human existence.
What would you expect for sentencing for this crime these people did to us???

Zippo.

I often wonder why the wingnuts think that scientific research into the unknown is tantamount to what you'd find in a crystal ball. Still, these are the same people who think creationism took place

 

[Mr. Shaman]

True, but I was saying we have no evidence to prove the warming is in the normal range, which does not contradict what you are saying.

As I said, there is evidence that points to this warming to be outside the normal range, but (thought it seems likely to me) I have not seen what I consider to be absolute proof that that is the case.

Do we have to wait till we actually have a climate issue on our hands for it to be absolute? What's the limit? We know humans have a significant impact on climate, but what we don't know is if that impact can cascade to total climate failure.

I'm not on either side but the question needs to be asked.

"We know humans have a significant impact on climate..."

You may know it. But you haven't proven it.

You consider this insignificant, huh?

*

The "conservative" Paradise!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56u6g0POvo0]Devo - "Beautiful World" - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Old Rocks]

Do we have to wait till we actually have a climate issue on our hands for it to be absolute? What's the limit? We know humans have a significant impact on climate, but what we don't know is if that impact can cascade to total climate failure.

I'm not on either side but the question needs to be asked.

"We know humans have a significant impact on climate..."

You may know it. But you haven't proven it.

You consider this insignificant, huh?

*

The "conservative" Paradise!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56u6g0POvo0]Devo - "Beautiful World" - YouTube[/ame]​

Of course 'Conservatives' consider that insignificant. It is making money, so it cannot be wrong or bad for anybody.

 

[Conservative]

"We know humans have a significant impact on climate..."

You may know it. But you haven't proven it.

You consider this insignificant, huh?

*

The "conservative" Paradise!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56u6g0POvo0]Devo - "Beautiful World" - YouTube[/ame]​

Of course 'Conservatives' consider that insignificant. It is making money, so it cannot be wrong or bad for anybody.

It's about as significant as the dot pointed to in this pic...

 

[Old Rocks]

You consider this insignificant, huh?

*


Devo - "Beautiful World" - YouTube​

Of course 'Conservatives' consider that insignificant. It is making money, so it cannot be wrong or bad for anybody.

It's about as significant as the dot pointed to in this pic...

What a wonderful example of 'Conservative' logic. Because we are a very small part of a galaxy and there are millions of galaxys, we can muck up the only world we have all that we want.

 

[westwall]

Actually it's the other way around. We have shown many times that all that is being observed and has been observed is normal variability and has occured countless times in the history of the planet. We have also shown that there is NO empirical data to support the theory of AGW. None. All there is are computer models of proven poor performance.

It is YOU who need to prove that what is occuring now is somehow different then what has happened in the past. Occams Razor my friend, Occams Razor. Look it up.

Um, actually, you have not.

You have shown that there is variability in the planet's temperatures, yes.

But no-one has shown that the temperature changes we are seeing now are in the "normal" range.

There has in fact been evidence to the contrary, but again, the cause of Climate Change has not been proven to be man-made.

But, the cause of our current climate change has certainly NOT been proven to caused by something other than man either.

So, your assertion is incorrect.

Sure we have. The paleo record is very clear on that. However your AGW proponents MUST cut the record at 30 years to support their contention that there is a massive warming...and as we have seen even that is no longer true, the temperature has leveled off and may be on the verge of a drop.

Hansen has had to go back into the historical temperature record and alter THOSE RECORDS because they prove him wrong. And you might want to look at the north and south poles, they are covered in more ice then they have been in years...maybe decades.

 

[westwall]

Of course 'Conservatives' consider that insignificant. It is making money, so it cannot be wrong or bad for anybody.

It's about as significant as the dot pointed to in this pic...

What a wonderful example of 'Conservative' logic. Because we are a very small part of a galaxy and there are millions of galaxys, we can muck up the only world we have all that we want.

Ahhh yes the ever popular reversion to "the cons just want to pollute for the sake of polluting" cannard. The fact remains that environmentalists have done more environmental damage to California in the last twenty years then all of industry managed to do.

And....they havn't suffered one iota for their idiocy. Had a private company poisoned thousands of water wells throughout CA they would have been crucified, the company officers prosecuted, the company itself driven into bankruptcy and all that goes with it.

The environmentalists on the other hand wring their hands and say "gosh Mr. Withers, we're sorry, really, really, sorry. We meant well...honest we did, but you know how things are when you have lots of good feelings but no scientific background......you make mistakes, no hard feelings right?"

 

[daveman]

Do we have to wait till we actually have a climate issue on our hands for it to be absolute? What's the limit? We know humans have a significant impact on climate, but what we don't know is if that impact can cascade to total climate failure.

I'm not on either side but the question needs to be asked.

"We know humans have a significant impact on climate..."

You may know it. But you haven't proven it.

Know what nuclear winter is?

Ever been to heavily industrialized areas of China?

Do you know what acid rain is?

We've never had a nuclear winter, have we?

Your other two examples are impacts on weather, not climate. There's a difference.

 

[Photonic]

"We know humans have a significant impact on climate..."

You may know it. But you haven't proven it.

Know what nuclear winter is?

Ever been to heavily industrialized areas of China?

Do you know what acid rain is?

We've never had a nuclear winter, have we?

Your other two examples are impacts on weather, not climate. There's a difference.

So because we've never had a nuclear winter, it doesn't and can't exist?

 

[daveman]

My point was that both sides are using those same tactics.

To differing extents.

And I used that point to respond to the OP, to point out how over the top it was...

I don't agree that AGW cultists should be executed. Jailed or fined, or both, if fraud is proven in court.

And Hansen should face punishment for his violations of Federal ethics laws.

Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income | Watts Up With That?

Anthony Watts. A non-degreed ex-TV weatherman. No credibility in any sphere, has been proven to be a liar many times.

So you're saying he's just like you?

How about linking to the specific laws that you claim Dr. Hansen may have broken? Can you do that, or is this just more of your idiotic flapyap.

Oh, you stupid, stupid little man.

U.S. Office of Government Ethics - Employee Standards of Conduct

In 1989, the President’s Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform recommended that individual agency standards of conduct be replaced with a single regulation applicable to all employees of the executive branch. Acting upon that recommendation, President Bush signed Executive Order 12674 on April 12, 1989. That Executive Order (as modified by Executive Order 12731) set out fourteen basic principles of ethical conduct for executive branch personnel and directed OGE to establish a single, comprehensive, and clear set of executive branch standards of ethical conduct. OGE published the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch on August 7, 1992. The regulation became effective on February 3, 1993, and was codified in 5 C.F.R. Part 2635. Part 2635 has been amended several times. Review the rulemaking history.​

And before you screech that it doesn't apply to Hansen, the form requiring disclosure of outside income is available on the NASA website:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/109630main_278form.pdf

Your high priest broke the law. Now, run off and get your talking points about how it's okay.

 

[daveman]

Well, we have this record that goes back at least 650,000 years in the ice cores from Antarctica. And we see no increase in GHGs at any time to match that we are seeing today. And the changes that we see in that record that involved rapid change, also involved catastrophic changes in the environment, such as the Younger Dryas period.

Yes, we do have a record of what is normal range variability in both temperature and time, and we are far outside of it.

Don't forget that temperature increases always precede CO2 increases by several centuries.

How awful CO2 is! It goes back in time to make the earth hotter!

But go ahead, accept the rants of an obese junkie over all the research of the scientists involved in the study of climate. It is only your children and grandchildren that will pay for your willfull ignorance.

I repeat: If you had science on your side, you wouldn't need emotionalism and fear-mongering.

Daveyboy, once again you are repeating nonsense. Yes, in the natural order of the Milankovic Cycles, the warming of the Southern Oceans precedes the emission of CO2 from that source. And that CO2 is the feedback that changes us from the continental glaciers to the interglacial period. And, if you look at the rythmic glaciations and interglaciations, you note that the descent into glacial conditions is slow, while the heat increase that creates the interglacial periods is very fast.

And that increase of CO2, from 180 ppm to 280 ppm, is only 100 ppm. We have already added 110 ppm of CO2, and over 1000 ppb of CH4. And CH4 is a stronger GHG than CO2 by a factor of at least 70 over a 20 year period.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

CO2 goes back in time.

Run along, Chicken Little.

 

[daveman]

Corrupt Science : Evidence of Massive Climatology Fraud Exposed | ARCHITECT AFRICA | ARCHITECTURE

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes

The Flathead Society - Page 1 - Cal Thomas - Townhall Conservative

Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming


The link below exposes the back door global socialism motive of the 'professional' environmentalists...

Global Warming Equals Socialism

I wonder what the legal sentencing will be for these criminals? The tax cost globally to the human community from their fraudulent back door global socialist scheme certainly has to be measured in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. This would make their crime the single biggest premeditated crime against all of humanity in the entire history of recorded human existence.
What would you expect for sentencing for this crime these people did to us???

Zippo.

I often wonder why the wingnuts think that scientific research into the unknown is tantamount to what you'd find in a crystal ball. Still, these are the same people who think creationism took place

AGW is not science. It's a religion.

You're criticizing the wrong people.

 

[daveman]

Know what nuclear winter is?

Ever been to heavily industrialized areas of China?

Do you know what acid rain is?

We've never had a nuclear winter, have we?

Your other two examples are impacts on weather, not climate. There's a difference.

So because we've never had a nuclear winter, it doesn't and can't exist?

Did I say that? Hint: No. Moron.

If there is a large scale nuclear war, the climate will be affected. But we haven't had one.

Now, can we deal with reality instead of more Chicken Little fear-mongering? Oh, sorry -- that's all you've got.

 

[Photonic]

We've never had a nuclear winter, have we?

Your other two examples are impacts on weather, not climate. There's a difference.

So because we've never had a nuclear winter, it doesn't and can't exist?

Did I say that? Hint: No. Moron.

If there is a large scale nuclear war, the climate will be affected. But we haven't had one.

Now, can we deal with reality instead of more Chicken Little fear-mongering? Oh, sorry -- that's all you've got.

So we've established that humans are indeed capable of changing the climate in some form.

Now, why is it so impossible that there is no other way other than mass destruction in order for us to change the climate?

I'm just trying to get to the roots of this.

 

[daveman]

So because we've never had a nuclear winter, it doesn't and can't exist?

Did I say that? Hint: No. Moron.

If there is a large scale nuclear war, the climate will be affected. But we haven't had one.

Now, can we deal with reality instead of more Chicken Little fear-mongering? Oh, sorry -- that's all you've got.

So we've established that humans are indeed capable of changing the climate in some form.

Now, why is it so impossible that there is no other way other than mass destruction in order for us to change the climate?

I'm just trying to get to the roots of this.

Goodness, you're just really not very smart.

I never said it was impossible that humans can alter the climate. I said AGW supporters have not proven their claim that we already have.

 

[Photonic]

Did I say that? Hint: No. Moron.

If there is a large scale nuclear war, the climate will be affected. But we haven't had one.

Now, can we deal with reality instead of more Chicken Little fear-mongering? Oh, sorry -- that's all you've got.

So we've established that humans are indeed capable of changing the climate in some form.

Now, why is it so impossible that there is no other way other than mass destruction in order for us to change the climate?

I'm just trying to get to the roots of this.

Goodness, you're just really not very smart.

I never said it was impossible that humans can alter the climate. I said AGW supporters have not proven their claim that we already have.

I believe I agreed with that line of reasoning, and agree with the the fact that it has not been fully substantiated. But what is your level of acceptable evidence? It would seem to me that you are nearly unwilling to accept such a reality should it be real.

 

[daveman]

So we've established that humans are indeed capable of changing the climate in some form.

Now, why is it so impossible that there is no other way other than mass destruction in order for us to change the climate?

I'm just trying to get to the roots of this.

Goodness, you're just really not very smart.

I never said it was impossible that humans can alter the climate. I said AGW supporters have not proven their claim that we already have.

I believe I agreed with that line of reasoning, and agree with the the fact that it has not been fully substantiated. But what is your level of acceptable evidence? It would seem to me that you are nearly unwilling to accept such a reality should it be real.

IMO, every scrap of research and modeling thus far needs to be shitcanned. It's hopelessly flawed and distorted to fit the predetermined conclusion. Use data from EVERY temperature station, not just the ones in warm areas. Did you know there is only one station being used to represent all of Canada above the Arctic Circle? And it's in a warm spot.

For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that

It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.​

That’s because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages – which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out – will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped.

Overall, U.S. online stations have dropped from a peak of 1,850 in 1963 to a low of 136 as of 2007. In his blog, Smith wittily observed that “the Thermometer Langoliers have eaten 9/10 of the thermometers in the USA[,] including all the cold ones in California.” But he was deadly serious after comparing current to previous versions of USHCN data and discovering that this “selection bias” creates a +0.6°C warming in U.S. temperature history.​

There really can be no defense of this. It's simply bad science.

Bulldoze the whole mess and start all over. And don't let any of the crooks currently involved anywhere near it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I wonder what the legal sentencing will be for these criminals?

In our system, you don't get sentenced to anything for being found guilty by the court of right wing nut jobs.

The tax cost globally to the human community from their fraudulent back door global socialist scheme certainly has to be measured in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. This would make their crime the single biggest premeditated crime against all of humanity in the entire history of recorded human existence.
What would you expect for sentencing for this crime these people did to us???

You are one seriously fucked up human being. Go put on your aluminum hat.

 

[daveman]

In our system, you don't get sentenced to anything for being found guilty by the court of right wing nut jobs.

But Bush should face trial at The Hague for "war crimes" and for stealing elections.