Climate Science Untarnished by Stolen E-mails

[CrusaderFrank]

President of National Society of Climate Scientists

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There are more than a few True MMGW Believers here who would scrawl CO2 on their chest and hang themselves for the cause

 

[Zander]

Ignore that man behind the curtain!!!! I am the great and powerful oz!! AGW is real!!! These e-mails reveal nothing!! NOTHING!!!!

 

[Sinatra]

Ignore that man behind the curtain!!!! I am the great and powerful oz!! AGW is real!!! These e-mails reveal nothing!! NOTHING!!!!

 

[Toronado3800]

Ok strawfolk and wishful dreamers. Back to basics.

Ever do the 5th grade test with adding the greenhouse gas mix to the enclosed fish tank and comparing it to one with a regular atmospheric mix?

 

[Oddball]

Not going to give up that irrelevant fish tank thingy easily, are you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dinosaurs: We are not concerned about the 6 mile-wide asteroid that just impacted in Mexico.

 

[Toronado3800]

Nope. It's something I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It raises the probability an increased amount of similar gasses in the atmosphere has a similar result.

Could be wrong. Heck, reduce solar energy for the next decade and we could be praying for some greenhouse effect. Just I'm conservative and it seems safer not to ignore it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How do they measure out 380 parts per million in the 5th grade experiment?

 

[Big Fitz]

Like I keep saying, it's Watergate all over again.

All we need now are Deep Throat and Rosemary Woods.

oh no... much much bigger. Nixon was one nation. This is EVERY nation.

 

[Toronado3800]

Dude, I'll accept as possibilities any of an unknown number of cosmic events can also modify the planet's temperature. I'd bet it's happened repeatedly for the last 4 Billion or so years.

 

[Toronado3800]

How do they measure out 380 parts per million in the 5th grade experiment

It is much more crude lol.

 

[JimH52]

So let me get this straight

The IPCC who utlizes and basis their conclusions from research done from organizations like the CRU want to try and say there is no smoking gun so their info still seems valid and continues to get funding.

WOW WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE THEIR POSITION!

Nice job there Sherlock

No, the AP says there is nothing in the e-mails, and they have read them all, that proves fraud with global warming. Now, is the AP a group of socialist Democrats?

 

[Big Fitz]

INTERVIEW - Climate science untarnished by hacked emails - IPCC | Top News | Reuters

This is exactly what a lot of us have been saying. There is no smoking gun in the e-mails. The problem is the neos that want to deny globla warming don't understand what they are reading. WHO WOULDA THUNK?

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!!

is what they tell us. But this is what really happened.

 

[JimH52]

Fitz, nice! Did you receive a coloring book for Christmas! Well then, you are a qualified scientist then!

 

[Big Fitz]

Fitz, nice! Did you receive a coloring book for Christmas! Well then, you are a qualified scientist then!

I'm more honest than those working for the Hadley CRU and their associates, that's for sure.

I see you recieved your lobotomy for christmas, early.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah...A "news" agency even whacker than AP, vouching for the hoaxers who're spoon feeding them the doomsday story to end all doomsday stories.

Tom, we have some newspaper people on the payroll who might like a story like that, don't we?

 

[code1211]

Nope. It's something I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It raises the probability an increased amount of similar gasses in the atmosphere has a similar result.

Could be wrong. Heck, reduce solar energy for the next decade and we could be praying for some greenhouse effect. Just I'm conservative and it seems safer not to ignore it.

In your fifth grade experiment, this is a compelling level of education from which to cull your research, what percent of the original atmosphere was replaced with CO2?

 

[code1211]

So let me get this straight

The IPCC who utlizes and basis their conclusions from research done from organizations like the CRU want to try and say there is no smoking gun so their info still seems valid and continues to get funding.

WOW WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE THEIR POSITION!

Nice job there Sherlock

No, the AP says there is nothing in the e-mails, and they have read them all, that proves fraud with global warming. Now, is the AP a group of socialist Democrats?

The AP read the emails? The whole AP sat down as a group and passed each email from one member to the next and then they voted unanimously that the AP found nothing untoward?

Maybe one writer? Maybe a reporter quoting someone who claimed to have read the emails? How about a link.

The emails discuss rigging the peer review process, withholding data from those who are not proponents of AGW and talk about a scientist who disagrees Phil Jones and writing that he wants to "...beat the crap out of him."

The person who is about to have his crap beaten out calls the cumulative take away from this represetative of being unethical.

Phil Jones has since resigned from his post in England. That says allot all by itself.

Climate Emails Stoke Debate - WSJ.com

The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with.

Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.

 

[Oddball]

Nope. It's something I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It raises the probability an increased amount of similar gasses in the atmosphere has a similar result.

Could be wrong. Heck, reduce solar energy for the next decade and we could be praying for some greenhouse effect. Just I'm conservative and it seems safer not to ignore it.

In your fifth grade experiment, this is a compelling level of education from which to cull your research, what percent of the original atmosphere was replaced with CO2?

And what was the measured difference between a .03% concentration and a .04% concentration of CO2 in that experiment?