Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F'

[gslack]

Why wouldn't you want to hide the decline? If the decline is due to natural forces, then you HAVE to hide it in order to parse out the contribution of man. To not hide it is like trying to measure out a liquid outside during a rain storm. If you don't "hide" the liquid you're measuring, you're going to be including a lot of rain.

Never fails like a clock his little parrot shows up every time he gets busted. Sorry pal too late he stuck his foot in it deep this time and no amount of distraction will change it...

 

[konradv]

That was not your claim, and that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the article like that. AND it took you 2 days to finally address it, and this is the best excuse you can come up with???

Really?

Some bullshit song and dance irrelevant math that was not part of your claim and not part of the article you cited as source?

UNFREAKINGBELEIVABLE!!!

Seriously you are pathetic now.......
-----------------------------------------

What's unfreakingbelievable is what a douche bag you are. We don't post correctly or don't answer you in time. Why should we care about the opinion of someone who ignores the basic logic of the situation?

CO2 absorbs energy.

The amount in the atmosphere has been going up.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Tell us, where is the extra CO2 over-and-above historical averages coming from, if not man?

 

[boedicca]

Posted in another thread, here's the real story behind the demonizing of CO2:

Given the Obama Administration's goal of passing Cap and Trade and its demonization of Wall Street - it's important to understand how Goldman Sachs is actually a big stakeholder in seeing it pass:

Whether Wall Street colossus Goldman Sachs has committed a crime remains to be seen, but the investigation may well uncover the environmental lobby and its public figurehead. For nearly a decade, Goldman Sachs has been a quiet but major investor in cap and trade. And Goldman’s main investment partner has been Al Gore.

About a decade ago, Goldman executives recognized that personal fortunes could be made with the invention of a carbon trading system through the passage of a U.S. cap-and-trade bill. This area was well suited to Goldman Sachs, the architects behind the complex world of futures trading and exotic derivatives.

Goldman joined Al Gore in 2004 and capitalized his investment company, Generation Investment Management. Strangely for a man who was a heartbeat away from the presidency, Gore decided to register his company in London — not the United States.

In November 2004, Gore unveiled GIM. Standing at his side was David Blood, the CEO of Goldman Asset Management. Blood was to become his co-founder (the new company was quickly nicknamed “Blood & Gore”). It was established with the initial capital of $206 million, much of it from Blood clients at Goldman Sachs.

Gore also turned to Goldman Sachs guru (and later Bush Treasury Secretary) Henry Paulson to help him establish GIM. At the time, Paulson himself was an eco-warrior of sorts, serving as chairman of the board of the Nature Conservancy.

Today, seven of Gore’s GIM chief partners are from Goldman Sachs. The company is now valued at $2.2 billion.

(snip)

Marc Morano, publisher of Climatedepot.com, agrees:

Goldman Sachs is helping to engineer the next great bubble. And we are talking about subprime science, subprime politics, and subprime economics. Goldman Sachs is at the forefront of the subprime economics of carbon trading.

Although cap and trade has temporarily faded in Washington, D.C., carbon trading still lives in the nation’s capital. Next week, Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are expected to unveil a new cap-and-trade bill.

The idea of turning a free, colorless, and odorless gas into a product still attracts the money people. Myron Ebell, director of Freedom Action, says:

These Gore investments could potentially make him a billionaire. For a guy who started with just a small fortune he could end up with a very large one.

Pajamas Media Will Obama’s Goldman Sachs Attack Expose Al Gore? Or Other Dems?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/114735-will-obama-s-goldman-sachs-attack-expose-al-gore.html

 

[gslack]

That was not your claim, and that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the article like that. AND it took you 2 days to finally address it, and this is the best excuse you can come up with???

Really?

Some bullshit song and dance irrelevant math that was not part of your claim and not part of the article you cited as source?

UNFREAKINGBELEIVABLE!!!

Seriously you are pathetic now.......
-----------------------------------------

What's unfreakingbelievable is what a douche bag you are. We don't post correctly or don't answer you in time. Why should we care about the opinion of someone who ignores the basic logic of the situation?

CO2 absorbs energy.

The amount in the atmosphere has been going up.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Tell us, where is the extra CO2 over-and-above historical averages coming from, if not man?

4Days..... Thats the amount of time you took to come in here and try to defend the little weasel pal of yours....

Notice something? Your little pal ran away.... Showing his BS all too clearly.

AND your little obfuscation attempt is weak. It operates on the assumption CO2 (whether increased or not) drives climate. This has been shown and proven to be utterly false. CO2 is an effect of warming and not the cause. Ask any real scientist who actually works in the fields of paleo-climate research this direct question and an honest one will tell you the same thing I just did. Ask one of the faithful all clamoring for their research money and you will get a line of BS and postulating to confound and mislead the answer.

Now grow up and cite or quote people fairly douchebag...

 

[boedicca]

George says it best:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4]George Carlin on the Environment[/ame]

 

[Si modo]

That was not your claim, and that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the article like that. AND it took you 2 days to finally address it, and this is the best excuse you can come up with???

Really?

Some bullshit song and dance irrelevant math that was not part of your claim and not part of the article you cited as source?

UNFREAKINGBELEIVABLE!!!

Seriously you are pathetic now.......
-----------------------------------------

What's unfreakingbelievable is what a douche bag you are. We don't post correctly or don't answer you in time. Why should we care about the opinion of someone who ignores the basic logic of the situation?

CO2 absorbs energy.

The amount in the atmosphere has been going up.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Tell us, where is the extra CO2 over-and-above historical averages coming from, if not man?

And, as has been pointed out to you before, your 'logic' is in error. IF CO2 levels are the only variable in climate effects, your point MIGHT have merit. It's not the only variable, thus your 'point' has no merit.

You have a short memory, are just not too bright, or are dishonest.

 

[boedicca]

You have a short memory, are just not too bright, or are dishonest.

I'm going to guess he's doing a full hat trick.

 

[westwall]

Please address a simple question I have for you. How did the temperature rise so high during the Roman Warming Period and the Medeival Warming Period without mans influence? Please answer that simple question if you would be so kind.

That was not your claim, and that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the article like that. AND it took you 2 days to finally address it, and this is the best excuse you can come up with???

Really?

Some bullshit song and dance irrelevant math that was not part of your claim and not part of the article you cited as source?

UNFREAKINGBELEIVABLE!!!

Seriously you are pathetic now.......
-----------------------------------------

What's unfreakingbelievable is what a douche bag you are. We don't post correctly or don't answer you in time. Why should we care about the opinion of someone who ignores the basic logic of the situation?

CO2 absorbs energy.

The amount in the atmosphere has been going up.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Tell us, where is the extra CO2 over-and-above historical averages coming from, if not man?

 

[Old Rocks]

Please give links or referances as to where you are getting your data.

The Medeival warming was not as warm as present.


Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

And real scientists get published in places like this;

Global temperature change ? PNAS

Nor was the Roman period, if there was one at all, as warm as we are at present.

You disagree? Present real articles that support your position from real science journals, preferably peer reviewed. You do know what that is?

 

[Old Rocks]

That was not your claim, and that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the article like that. AND it took you 2 days to finally address it, and this is the best excuse you can come up with???

Really?

Some bullshit song and dance irrelevant math that was not part of your claim and not part of the article you cited as source?

UNFREAKINGBELEIVABLE!!!

Seriously you are pathetic now.......
-----------------------------------------

What's unfreakingbelievable is what a douche bag you are. We don't post correctly or don't answer you in time. Why should we care about the opinion of someone who ignores the basic logic of the situation?

CO2 absorbs energy.

The amount in the atmosphere has been going up.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Tell us, where is the extra CO2 over-and-above historical averages coming from, if not man?

And, as has been pointed out to you before, your 'logic' is in error. IF CO2 levels are the only variable in climate effects, your point MIGHT have merit. It's not the only variable, thus your 'point' has no merit.

You have a short memory, are just not too bright, or are dishonest.

Data? Evidence for your position?

Logic? You have yet to demostrate that in the least amount, Si.

 

[Old Rocks]

That was not your claim, and that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the article like that. AND it took you 2 days to finally address it, and this is the best excuse you can come up with???

Really?

Some bullshit song and dance irrelevant math that was not part of your claim and not part of the article you cited as source?

UNFREAKINGBELEIVABLE!!!

Seriously you are pathetic now.......
-----------------------------------------

What's unfreakingbelievable is what a douche bag you are. We don't post correctly or don't answer you in time. Why should we care about the opinion of someone who ignores the basic logic of the situation?

CO2 absorbs energy.

The amount in the atmosphere has been going up.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Tell us, where is the extra CO2 over-and-above historical averages coming from, if not man?

4Days..... Thats the amount of time you took to come in here and try to defend the little weasel pal of yours....

Notice something? Your little pal ran away.... Showing his BS all too clearly.

AND your little obfuscation attempt is weak. It operates on the assumption CO2 (whether increased or not) drives climate. This has been shown and proven to be utterly false. CO2 is an effect of warming and not the cause. Ask any real scientist who actually works in the fields of paleo-climate research this direct question and an honest one will tell you the same thing I just did. Ask one of the faithful all clamoring for their research money and you will get a line of BS and postulating to confound and mislead the answer.

Now grow up and cite or quote people fairly douchebag...

Such a dumb little fuck you are, gslack.

 

[westwall]

I suggest you pull your head out of wikipedia and actually read some real history books. The Romans wrote of a very warm period and the Celts coming down from the northern part of Europe to get closer to the Mediterranean sea's climate moderating effect are exceptionally well documented. You just have to hall your carcass down to a book store or library to find out.

As far as the other here are a couple for you as you seem inable to do real research I will perforce have to do it for you.

C3: Greeland's Medieval Warming Hotter Than Modern Temps: Bird Crap Nails MWP for Researchers

And a second

CO2 Science

And a third

NCASI Health Monitor

sort of a fourth

Quadrant Online - End-phase of the Climate Wars?

And a Roman Warming Period selection for you

New technique shows Roman Warm Period Warmer than Present Day

Now go to a library and do some real research. Wikipedia is a joke

Here is some evidence for you

United Nations Uses Wikipedia Graph Talking About The Weather

This one is from a anti AGW sight but the information is good

Keith Briffa pulled from Wikipedia? Updated with comments by Lubo? Motl | Climate Realists

This one is too but once again the information is solid and provable...unlike wiki shit

Keith Briffa pulled from Wikipedia? Updated with comments by Lubo? Motl | Climate Realists

And for the why of it all I present this for the Occams Razor element...it's all about money

Pajamas Media More Global Warming Profiteering by Obama Energy Official

And finally while I realize you will discount a source from the "other side" I present this scathing report on RealClimate. Unlike wiki BS however you can find the original report to confirm what was said.

Climatologist slams RealClimate.org for 'erroneously communicating the reality of the how climate system is actually behaving' | Climate Depot

I realize you wont read any of this but there are some more clever folks out there who wish to know.

Have a nice day

Please give links or referances as to where you are getting your data.

The Medeival warming was not as warm as present.


Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

And real scientists get published in places like this;

Global temperature change ? PNAS

Nor was the Roman period, if there was one at all, as warm as we are at present.

You disagree? Present real articles that support your position from real science journals, preferably peer reviewed. You do know what that is?

 

[gslack]

That was not your claim, and that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the article like that. AND it took you 2 days to finally address it, and this is the best excuse you can come up with???

Really?

Some bullshit song and dance irrelevant math that was not part of your claim and not part of the article you cited as source?

UNFREAKINGBELEIVABLE!!!

Seriously you are pathetic now.......
-----------------------------------------

What's unfreakingbelievable is what a douche bag you are. We don't post correctly or don't answer you in time. Why should we care about the opinion of someone who ignores the basic logic of the situation?

CO2 absorbs energy.

The amount in the atmosphere has been going up.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Tell us, where is the extra CO2 over-and-above historical averages coming from, if not man?

4Days..... Thats the amount of time you took to come in here and try to defend the little weasel pal of yours....

Notice something? Your little pal ran away.... Showing his BS all too clearly.

AND your little obfuscation attempt is weak. It operates on the assumption CO2 (whether increased or not) drives climate. This has been shown and proven to be utterly false. CO2 is an effect of warming and not the cause. Ask any real scientist who actually works in the fields of paleo-climate research this direct question and an honest one will tell you the same thing I just did. Ask one of the faithful all clamoring for their research money and you will get a line of BS and postulating to confound and mislead the answer.

Now grow up and cite or quote people fairly douchebag...

Such a dumb little fuck you are, gslack.

Thats a very profane way to say I am right..... And yes I know I am right thank you very much.....

 

[Old Rocks]

So, you think that a bunch of blogers are more informed than the scientists at the National Academy of Science, USGS, NASA, NOAA, and the EPA.

To say nothing of all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science in the world, and all the major Univesities.

Well, yes, it is all about money. Exxon's money supporting the denial of the present warming, and it's obvious cause. And fools like you lap it up.

 

[Oddball]

Old Rocksinthehead sources a blog = Gospel.

Anyone else sources a blog = Trash.

All too predictable.

 

[gslack]

So, you think that a bunch of blogers are more informed than the scientists at the National Academy of Science, USGS, NASA, NOAA, and the EPA.

To say nothing of all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science in the world, and all the major Univesities.

Well, yes, it is all about money. Exxon's money supporting the denial of the present warming, and it's obvious cause. And fools like you lap it up.

Douchebag you are the one caught lying.... You are the one who takes the bloggers at their word and blindly posts the links they supply to you completely trusting them to be a truthful and accurate representations of the data.

You think its the same thing as going and checking or looking for yourself and thats the sad part. You never check you just post their sources like an idiot. And every time you get made to look a fool for it....

You are a known, documented, and proven liar and propagandist so please take your BS elsewhere...

 

[Si modo]

That was not your claim, and that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the article like that. AND it took you 2 days to finally address it, and this is the best excuse you can come up with???

Really?

Some bullshit song and dance irrelevant math that was not part of your claim and not part of the article you cited as source?

UNFREAKINGBELEIVABLE!!!

Seriously you are pathetic now.......
-----------------------------------------

What's unfreakingbelievable is what a douche bag you are. We don't post correctly or don't answer you in time. Why should we care about the opinion of someone who ignores the basic logic of the situation?

CO2 absorbs energy.

The amount in the atmosphere has been going up.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Tell us, where is the extra CO2 over-and-above historical averages coming from, if not man?

And, as has been pointed out to you before, your 'logic' is in error. IF CO2 levels are the only variable in climate effects, your point MIGHT have merit. It's not the only variable, thus your 'point' has no merit.

You have a short memory, are just not too bright, or are dishonest.

Data? Evidence for your position?

....

No problem. [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Introduction-Basic-Skills/dp/1551115735"]Introduction to Critical Thinking Skills.[/ame]

.... Logic? You have yet to demostrate that in the least amount, Si.

Yes. Logic. Read all about it then you will play at science better.

 

[westwall]

Well when you consider they are getting the information from all of those sources and other real science sources to boot and then rendering it down so simpletons can understand it...yeah!

And you may want to look at how much money ENRON invested as well as Chevron and BP into the carbon trading schemes. Then you can add Goldman Sachs, and Al Gore (who was hoping to make billions off of a completely fictitious market) and they were hoping to make WAY More money off of the schemes. But you're too smart for that aren't you. Or maybe you too were hoping to fleece the poor to elevate your living conditions.

And what prey tell are you going to do when all of those fraudsters are put into jail for ....well fraud? Right now there are rumours of two RICO cases being prepared that I know of and Mann, Jones, and even our dear Mr. Hansen are going to be crying in their cups before too long I fear.

What then oh prognosticator of nothing.

You are predictable and intellectually dishonest, thus you are no longer relevant to the discussion.

So, you think that a bunch of blogers are more informed than the scientists at the National Academy of Science, USGS, NASA, NOAA, and the EPA.

To say nothing of all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science in the world, and all the major Univesities.

Well, yes, it is all about money. Exxon's money supporting the denial of the present warming, and it's obvious cause. And fools like you lap it up.

 

[Old Rocks]

And, as has been pointed out to you before, your 'logic' is in error. IF CO2 levels are the only variable in climate effects, your point MIGHT have merit. It's not the only variable, thus your 'point' has no merit.

You have a short memory, are just not too bright, or are dishonest.

Data? Evidence for your position?

....

No problem. [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Introduction-Basic-Skills/dp/1551115735"]Introduction to Critical Thinking Skills.[/ame]

.... Logic? You have yet to demostrate that in the least amount, Si.

Yes. Logic. Read all about it then you will play at science better.

OK Si. So you are saying that the people at the American Institute of Physics lack critical thinking skills. And the people in the American Geophysical Union, the American Geological Society, and the American Meteorlogical Society. And every other Scientific Society in the world.

You state that the people in NASA, NOAA, the USGS, EPA, and Department of Energy all lack critical thinking skills. Perhaps that is indictutive of who really lacks such skills

 

[gslack]

Data? Evidence for your position?

....

No problem. [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Introduction-Basic-Skills/dp/1551115735"]Introduction to Critical Thinking Skills.[/ame]

.... Logic? You have yet to demostrate that in the least amount, Si.

Yes. Logic. Read all about it then you will play at science better.

OK Si. So you are saying that the people at the American Institute of Physics lack critical thinking skills. And the people in the American Geophysical Union, the American Geological Society, and the American Meteorlogical Society. And every other Scientific Society in the world.

You state that the people in NASA, NOAA, the USGS, EPA, and Department of Energy all lack critical thinking skills. Perhaps that is indictutive of who really lacks such skills

No puppet master, he is saying you and your alter-ego or friend lacks the ability... And I concur.... You are a liar, a puppet master, a propagandist, and an idiot who doesn't even fully read what he is about to reference or post from. And that's not even touching on the cowardly display you gave using your proxy......