Climate Gate Debunked

[Liminal]

The so called Climate Gate e-mail scandal is easily debunked nonsense, complete horse shit, a manufactured scandal tailor made for a FOX News audience.

 

[Pete7469]

The so called Climate Gate e-mail scandal is easily debunked nonsense, complete horse shit, a manufactured scandal tailor made for a FOX News audience.

By a COMEDIAN!!!

You do understand that COMEDIANS aren't subjected to ETHICAL SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS RIGHT? Conservatives don't have to be paid by cable networks to make fools of you, because you provide the entertainment for free and you still buy the products advertised on the stupid programs you watch.

 

[Liminal]

The so called Climate Gate e-mail scandal is easily debunked nonsense, complete horse shit, a manufactured scandal tailor made for a FOX News audience.

By a COMEDIAN!!!

You do understand that COMEDIANS aren't subjected to ETHICAL SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS RIGHT? Conservatives don't have to be paid by cable networks to make fools of you, because you provide the entertainment for free and you still buy the products advertised on the stupid programs you watch.

What I understand is that you didn't watch the video.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The so called Climate Gate e-mail scandal is easily debunked nonsense, complete horse shit, a manufactured scandal tailor made for a FOX News audience.

By a COMEDIAN!!!

You do understand that COMEDIANS aren't subjected to ETHICAL SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS RIGHT? Conservatives don't have to be paid by cable networks to make fools of you, because you provide the entertainment for free and you still buy the products advertised on the stupid programs you watch.

What I understand is that you didn't watch the video.

I can tell now you are just a child, WSJ was the first to report on it

 

[Liminal]

The so called Climate Gate e-mail scandal is easily debunked nonsense, complete horse shit, a manufactured scandal tailor made for a FOX News audience.

By a COMEDIAN!!!

You do understand that COMEDIANS aren't subjected to ETHICAL SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS RIGHT? Conservatives don't have to be paid by cable networks to make fools of you, because you provide the entertainment for free and you still buy the products advertised on the stupid programs you watch.

What I understand is that you didn't watch the video.

I can tell now you are just a child, WSJ was the first to report on it

I have no idea what this incoherent scree of nonsense means.

 

[westwall]

Sure thing. Funnily enough the facts don't support your propaganda. But that IS the nature of propaganda, tell a lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe you. Only, they don't anymore thanks to the internet which doesn't allow the AGW cultists to control the information any longer.

"A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data."

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

 

[Liminal]

Sure thing. Funnily enough the facts don't support your propaganda. But that IS the nature of propaganda, tell a lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe you. Only, they don't anymore thanks to the internet which doesn't allow the AGW cultists to control the information any longer.

"A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data."

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

Old news from 2011, already debunked.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The so called Climate Gate e-mail scandal is easily debunked nonsense, complete horse shit, a manufactured scandal tailor made for a FOX News audience.

By a COMEDIAN!!!

You do understand that COMEDIANS aren't subjected to ETHICAL SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS RIGHT? Conservatives don't have to be paid by cable networks to make fools of you, because you provide the entertainment for free and you still buy the products advertised on the stupid programs you watch.

What I understand is that you didn't watch the video.

I can tell now you are just a child, WSJ was the first to report on it

ok I will speak gibberish for you since the only thing you have in your mouth is fox wiener..


I have no idea what this incoherent scree of nonsense means.

 

[cnm]

It's old hat. The Fox lickers will never accept that multiple investigations have found no deception.

 

[cnm]

I can tell now you are just a child, WSJ was the first to report on it

No, WSJ was not the first to report that AGW was real, nor that ClimateGate was a non issue. None of which will make the slightest bit of difference to the Fox suckers.

The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism

There were good reasons for doubt, until now.

http://www.wsj.com

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups.

We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.​

 

[Wyatt earp]

I can tell now you are just a child, WSJ was the first to report on it

No, WSJ was not the first to report that AGW was real, nor that ClimateGate was a non issue. None of which will make the slightest bit of difference to the Fox suckers.

The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism

There were good reasons for doubt, until now.

http://www.wsj.com

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups.

We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.​

WTF is this shit? You tell me WSJ was not the first to report on it and then link a WSJ article?

How stupid

 

[cnm]

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

Oh. A lawyer who writes for Heartland. Ok then, I'm a believer. Who on earth would pay attention to climate scientists when one has a lobbyist to slurp up?

James Taylor

James Taylor - Endpoint Analysis

I write about energy and environment issues.

I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. I write about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. I have presented environmental analysis on CNN, CNN Headline News, CBS Evening News, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, and several national radio programs. My environmental analysis has been published in virtually every major newspaper in the United States. I studied atmospheric science and majored in government at Dartmouth College. I obtained my Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University.​

 

[cnm]

WTF is this shit? You tell me WSJ was not the first to report on it and then link a WSJ article?

How stupid

Well you are pretty slow so have to be led in baby steps. Too, I understand you'd be confused someone supplied excerpts and sources rather than just making assertions. No worries.

 

[Wyatt earp]

WTF is this shit? You tell me WSJ was not the first to report on it and then link a WSJ article?

How stupid

Well you are pretty slow so have to be led in baby steps. Too, I understand you'd be confused someone supplied excerpts and sources rather than just making assertions. No worries.

you are a ******* idiot, you did post WSJ was not the first to report on climate change, no **** dumb ass we are talking about the emails

 

[cnm]

This Committee reported there was no basis for the ClimateGate furore before the WSJ did. Muller was published in 2011. Still with me?

Climatic Research Unit email controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org

The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.[89]​

 

[cnm]

you are a ******* idiot, you did post WSJ was not the first to report on climate change, no **** dumb ass we are talking about the emails

Best you go lick a Fox, dude.

 

[westwall]

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

Oh. A lawyer who writes for Heartland. Ok then, I'm a believer. Who on earth would pay attention to climate scientists when one has a lobbyist to slurp up?

James Taylor

James Taylor - Endpoint Analysis

I write about energy and environment issues.

I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. I write about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. I have presented environmental analysis on CNN, CNN Headline News, CBS Evening News, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, and several national radio programs. My environmental analysis has been published in virtually every major newspaper in the United States. I studied atmospheric science and majored in government at Dartmouth College. I obtained my Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University.​

Every single climate "scientist" is a lobbyist, or haven't you figured that one out yet. Here's a very serious question for you. They tell you that CO2 is terrible and will cause all sorts of problems. Has it never bothered you that every bit of legislation they wish to pass merely makes polluting cost more. You can STILL pollute. You just have to pay for the privilege, and they, of course get to pocket the proceeds. Nowhere is there anything relating to reducing pollution.

A thinking person would wonder why, if the consequences were so dire, the only regulations were about money and nothing else. But, as we all know, you're not a thinking person are you? No, you're merely a parrot.

 

[gtopa1]

Both satellites and surface temperature readings, however, showed prolonged periods without statistically significant warming trends - 15 years for surface temperatures and more than 18 years for satellites.

Scientists have already pushed back against NOAA’s new study. The news site Mashable interviewed about a dozen climate scientists not involved in the study, and nearly all of them said “the study does not support the authors’ conclusion that the so-called warming pause never happened.”

“Instead, they said it simply proves that changing the start and end dates used for analyzing temperature trends has a big influence on those measurements, a fact that was already widely known,” Mashable reported.

“The main claim by the authors that they have uncovered a significant recent warming trend is dubious,” scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute wrote in an open letter on the NOAA study.

ICECAP


Could have just as easily used "wattsupwithat"...

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

From the same source

Why is that??

Simple answer is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Oh: and "evul" Capitalism!!

They're the usual lefty halfwits.



Greg

 

[westwall]

Sure thing. Funnily enough the facts don't support your propaganda. But that IS the nature of propaganda, tell a lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe you. Only, they don't anymore thanks to the internet which doesn't allow the AGW cultists to control the information any longer.

"A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data."

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

Old news from 2011, already debunked.

It has? I hate to break it to you but poking your fingers in your ears and screaming while closing your eyes doesn't constitute "debunking"...it does show what infantile argumentation skills you have. In spades!