Climategate, AP Not Impressed

[☭proletarian☭]

The Day After Tomorrow Cult, which blindly follows Reverend Al Gore and his Gospel of the Death of Gaia by the Wickedness of Man has failed to prevent adequate evidence supporting their claims. With great assertions comes a great burden of proof. That burden has not been met, and all we are shown is very few data points regarding an incredibly complex non-linear system with no real explanation of how these human activities are to so greatly upset a system that we barely even grasp.

 

[Ravi]

there are people on this site that deny our planet is warming at all, and say it is cooling, not warming....like sinatra, PP, perhaps Dude and Code also...

and there are people that accept the warming but deny human pollution admitting CO2, contributes to this warming and believe the warming is due to natural causes only.

So there are 2 minds of deniers imo.

Speaking only for myself, it's been established that the warmest decade of the last 100 years was in the '30s, not the last ten years. NASA has admitted as much. SOURCE Likewise, the general trend has been slightly downward since 1998. That's just the way it is.

One of the biggest gaping holes in the hypothesis that man's industrial activities are to blame for the warming of the last 70 years, and much of the past 20 in particular, is that not a one of the IPCC warmists can quantify, with any reasonable certainty, how much those activities are to blame.... If you can't come up with even a loose approximation of how much X or Y is a determining factor in any equation, then the supposition is flawed from the outset. That's a rule of both mathematics and logic.

Of course, as I have also held all along, the semantics of the warmists are the biggest giveaway that they're probably not on the level. Not the least of which is the term "denier" (i.e. holocaust denier) being tossed around to smear anyone and everyone who dares to question the veracity of the doomsayers.

I'll thank you to ask me about how I think about this next time, m'kay?

Your "source" has a rather creative way of "reporting" the NASA data, which can be found on NASA's website:

NASA - 2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year

And the "source" of your "source" is an Exxon backed right wing loon, pretty damn funny stuff.

Think Progress » Exxon-Backed Pundit Compares Gore To Nazi Propagandist

 

[Ravi]

there are people on this site that deny our planet is warming at all, and say it is cooling, not warming....like sinatra, PP, perhaps Dude and Code also...

and there are people that accept the warming but deny human pollution admitting CO2, contributes to this warming and believe the warming is due to natural causes only.

So there are 2 minds of deniers imo.

Speaking only for myself, it's been established that the warmest decade of the last 100 years was in the '30s, not the last ten years. NASA has admitted as much. SOURCE Likewise, the general trend has been slightly downward since 1998. That's just the way it is.

Your turn to play dumb. Care is clearly referring to the WHOLE GLOBE with the words "our planet."
And there you are again in typical CON$ervative fashion, though you will probably deny your CON$ervative habits, lying by half truth. The CON$ervative MO is to leave out critical information, AKA trying to lie to the level of ignorance of your victim.

In this case you left out that the NASA admissions were for the US temps and not GLOBAL temps. Your own link admits that fact, but somehow it didn't make it into your post. 1999 to 2008 is still the warmest decade GLOBALLY in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Again I ask, if the trend was downward (cooler) since 1998, as you falsaely claim, how could 1999 to 2008 be the warmest decade?

Oops...I see you already called him on his hackery.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Scarfetta and West did in fact apportion the warming between mankind and natural causes with mankind bearing the brunt of the blame and the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky drawing Lemons. When you look into their methodology their report says, "because we say so"

Pretty convincing stuff.

 

[jodylee]

determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.

Must read AP analysis of stolen emails: An “exhaustive review” shows “the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.” « Climate Progress

And I read this is a local conservative newspaper also. So, Limbaugh will be beating a dead horse for months to come...HA!

Then why have we have 11 years of cooling temperatures while CO2 emmisions have risen? Would someone please answer that question. I wanna know.

Time lag, temperature precedes Co2, if the temp goes up the next ten years or so the co2 will start falling from the last 10 years of cooling, juswt like the sea takes a few hours to warm. and if you don't belive temperature precedes Co2 then stick a glass of water in the sun and see the Co2 bubbles collect on the side, now imagine that glass is the sea.

 

[Navy1960]

BEIJING — China accused developed countries Tuesday of backsliding on what it said were their obligations to fight climate change and warned that the U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen had entered a critical stage.

In sharp comments made as the atmosphere at the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen grows more divisive, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said there had been "some regression" on the part of developed countries on their position regarding financial support.

The change in their position "will hamper the Copenhagen conference," Jiang told a regular news conference in Beijing.

China and the United States — the world's top two carbon polluters — have been at odds in Copenhagen.
The Associated Press: China accuses developed countries on climate

You do see why this is not going to ever work don't you? China holds a large majority of US and world debt however China wants the US to basically go into deeper debt with China by borrowing money to give back in terms of helping China realize Climate Change goals that they will NOT commit too. If the US and the rest of the developed world decided to move ahead with such draconian measures based on a set of Scientific conclusions to the exclusion of others, then they do so at their own economic peril. China nor India have shown any signs of slowing production coal fired plants and in fact are still building them at a record pace. That is the fallacy in legislation that seeks to reduce CO2 emissions even if the US and other nations should decide to reduce CO2 emissions without China and India, you have basically accomplished nothing other than slice your economic throats all in the name of scientific conclusions that may or may not be true. One other thing of note here, there are things this nation can do, especially with energy that other nations are doing. Take France with nuclear, or Brazil , and now yes even India and it's recent commitment to build many new nuclear reactors in that nation. All it takes is the commitment to do so, rather than this focus on the science and marketing of global warming.

 

[edthecynic]

Again I ask, if the trend was downward (cooler) since 1998, as you falsaely claim, how could 1999 to 2008 be the warmest decade?

Because it wasn't the warmest decade...The 1930s are still the title holder as the warmest decade.

But all of your arrogant asshat bluster aside, what evidence would you accept that your half-baked Malthusian science fiction hypothesis was wrong?

Again in typical CON$ervative fashion, when caught in a lie you just keep repeating the lie.

Your own source link admits that the 1930s were the warmest decade for the USA. The USA is not the whole globe. Admit it, the GOP hate media you parrot successfully lied to your level of ignorance.

As far as what evidence would convince me I was wrong, it would be REAL evidence, not deliberately deceptive lies. When you CON$ try to snooker me with crap like 1934 was the warmest year, or we've been cooling for 11 years, or posting a graph of the Stratosphere as the Troposphere, etc., you CON$ actually convince me you KNOW you have no REAL evidence and your ONLY recourse is deception.

So now I ask you, what evidence would you accept to get you to stop lying?

 

[concept]

Again I ask, if the trend was downward (cooler) since 1998, as you falsaely claim, how could 1999 to 2008 be the warmest decade?

Because it wasn't the warmest decade...The 1930s are still the title holder as the warmest decade.

But all of your arrogant asshat bluster aside, what evidence would you accept that your half-baked Malthusian science fiction hypothesis was wrong?

Again in typical CON$ervative fashion, when caught in a lie you just keep repeating the lie.

Your own source link admits that the 1930s were the warmest decade for the USA. The USA is not the whole globe. Admit it, the GOP hate media you parrot successfully lied to your level of ignorance.

As far as what evidence would convince me I was wrong, it would be REAL evidence, not deliberately deceptive lies. When you CON$ try to snooker me with crap like 1934 was the warmest year, or we've been cooling for 11 years, or posting a graph of the Stratosphere as the Troposphere, etc., you CON$ actually convince me you KNOW you have no REAL evidence and your ONLY recourse is deception.

So now I ask you, what evidence would you accept to get you to stop lying?

There is nothing any of us can say that will stop you from being an apologist.

If data from the scientist's OWN hacked or stolen emails aren't enough then there is no help for you at all.

 

[slackjawed]

The hacked emails only highlight a problem inherent in a system where research institutions must hold a particular view in order to obtain funding.
Throughout history, scientific issues have been questioned, as they should be. Science is always settled by science, not by political motives. Funding is settled by political motives, not science. The current system of funding science does not seem to allow legitimate debate. That is what I see in the leaked emails.
When science is questioned it is healthy, and makes the science stronger. When this questioning is stifled, science is made weaker. This questioning can and should continue as long as there are those that have questions. Unanswered questions are the stuff that science is made of, that is the basis of science-questioning.
Those that resort to personal attacks, in regards to science (or any other topic), only show their preference for ignorance. Continued questioning only makes science stronger. The debate either shows that the view held by the mainstream is either strong enough to withstand this questioning or that questioning shows that the view held by the mainstream does not stand up to questioning and is therefore bunk science. Science is a search for answers and real science is not settled by court cases or public opinion.
Science is supposed to be a continuing discussion and debate based on reproducible experimentation. Questioning science is healthy for the study of science. When one states that "the debate is over, the issue is settled", that person has abandoned science and entered the world of politics.

 

[Oddball]

Again I ask, if the trend was downward (cooler) since 1998, as you falsaely claim, how could 1999 to 2008 be the warmest decade?

Because it wasn't the warmest decade...The 1930s are still the title holder as the warmest decade.

But all of your arrogant asshat bluster aside, what evidence would you accept that your half-baked Malthusian science fiction hypothesis was wrong?

Again in typical CON$ervative fashion, when caught in a lie you just keep repeating the lie.

Your own source link admits that the 1930s were the warmest decade for the USA. The USA is not the whole globe. Admit it, the GOP hate media you parrot successfully lied to your level of ignorance.

As far as what evidence would convince me I was wrong, it would be REAL evidence, not deliberately deceptive lies. When you CON$ try to snooker me with crap like 1934 was the warmest year, or we've been cooling for 11 years, or posting a graph of the Stratosphere as the Troposphere, etc., you CON$ actually convince me you KNOW you have no REAL evidence and your ONLY recourse is deception.

So now I ask you, what evidence would you accept to get you to stop lying?

Is it any wonder guys like me stopped taking terminally foaming-at-the-mouth little demagogues like you seriously?

I asked you what evidence you would accept and you failed to answer the question, with any criteria that could be nailed down. Then, you resort to the old time tested misdirection technique (which doesn't work, BTW) of attacking the person asking the question with irrelevant sweeping generalizations.

Now, what evidence would you accept?

 

[JimH52]

If the AP is not impressed, this conspiracy theory is "dead on arrival" as the republicans like to say. IT IS GOING NOWHERE!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the AP is not impressed, this conspiracy theory is "dead on arrival" as the republicans like to say. IT IS GOING NOWHERE!

Keep telling that to yourself, Thelma

 

[edthecynic]

Because it wasn't the warmest decade...The 1930s are still the title holder as the warmest decade.

But all of your arrogant asshat bluster aside, what evidence would you accept that your half-baked Malthusian science fiction hypothesis was wrong?

Again in typical CON$ervative fashion, when caught in a lie you just keep repeating the lie.

Your own source link admits that the 1930s were the warmest decade for the USA. The USA is not the whole globe. Admit it, the GOP hate media you parrot successfully lied to your level of ignorance.

As far as what evidence would convince me I was wrong, it would be REAL evidence, not deliberately deceptive lies. When you CON$ try to snooker me with crap like 1934 was the warmest year, or we've been cooling for 11 years, or posting a graph of the Stratosphere as the Troposphere, etc., you CON$ actually convince me you KNOW you have no REAL evidence and your ONLY recourse is deception.

So now I ask you, what evidence would you accept to get you to stop lying?

Is it any wonder guys like me stopped taking terminally foaming-at-the-mouth little demagogues like you seriously?

I asked you what evidence you would accept and you failed to answer the question, with any criteria that could be nailed down. Then, you resort to the old time tested misdirection technique (which doesn't work, BTW) of attacking the person asking the question with irrelevant sweeping generalizations.

Now, what evidence would you accept?

Still playing dumb.

Your deflection question has been answered. It might not be the answer you wanted, but it WAS answered. Your easily exposed lies will never convince me, but are a testament to your level of ignorance in swallowing them so completely.

Now answer my question, what evidence will it take to get you to stop lying?

 

[Liability]

If the Warmergate thread is any indication. All of the people who are in the belief that Global Warming is fake have already had plenty of orgasms and have been getting drunk in celebration since this first came out.

Guess their hangover is going to suck even worse when they find out this little tidbit.

You remain either amazingly stupid or disgustingly dishonest.

Let's make it simple (again) so that you have a chance to grasp it or no valid excuse for continuing to pretend that there is no difference.

One CAN believe in Global Warming (climate is not static, so it's no stretch to believe in "Global Warming")

and YET NOT believe in ANTRHOPROGENIC Global Warming.

And the AP "analysis" is

conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient, but not in the slightest bit convincing, objectively.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Wolf has examined security protocols on the Henhouse and finds them adequate

 

[Oddball]

Again in typical CON$ervative fashion, when caught in a lie you just keep repeating the lie.

Your own source link admits that the 1930s were the warmest decade for the USA. The USA is not the whole globe. Admit it, the GOP hate media you parrot successfully lied to your level of ignorance.

As far as what evidence would convince me I was wrong, it would be REAL evidence, not deliberately deceptive lies. When you CON$ try to snooker me with crap like 1934 was the warmest year, or we've been cooling for 11 years, or posting a graph of the Stratosphere as the Troposphere, etc., you CON$ actually convince me you KNOW you have no REAL evidence and your ONLY recourse is deception.

So now I ask you, what evidence would you accept to get you to stop lying?

Is it any wonder guys like me stopped taking terminally foaming-at-the-mouth little demagogues like you seriously?

I asked you what evidence you would accept and you failed to answer the question, with any criteria that could be nailed down. Then, you resort to the old time tested misdirection technique (which doesn't work, BTW) of attacking the person asking the question with irrelevant sweeping generalizations.

Now, what evidence would you accept?

Still playing dumb.

Your deflection question has been answered. It might not be the answer you wanted, but it WAS answered. Your easily exposed lies will never convince me, but are a testament to your level of ignorance in swallowing them so completely.

Now answer my question, what evidence will it take to get you to stop lying?

That's not an answer, that's an evasion. You've been given evidence, yet dismiss it out-of-hand with ad hominem arguments toward both myself and the sources I've cited, rather than the information itself.

So, what would pass your lofty standard of "real evidence"?

 

[edthecynic]

Is it any wonder guys like me stopped taking terminally foaming-at-the-mouth little demagogues like you seriously?

I asked you what evidence you would accept and you failed to answer the question, with any criteria that could be nailed down. Then, you resort to the old time tested misdirection technique (which doesn't work, BTW) of attacking the person asking the question with irrelevant sweeping generalizations.

Now, what evidence would you accept?

Still playing dumb.

Your deflection question has been answered. It might not be the answer you wanted, but it WAS answered. Your easily exposed lies will never convince me, but are a testament to your level of ignorance in swallowing them so completely.

Now answer my question, what evidence will it take to get you to stop lying?

That's not an answer, that's an evasion. You've been given evidence, yet dismiss it out-of-hand with ad hominem arguments toward both myself and the sources I've cited, rather than the information itself.

So, what would pass your lofty standard of "real evidence"?

No, A lie is not evidence of anything other than a liar. Your lie was dismissed because you tried to deceive me by passing off the warmest USA temp as GLOBAL temp, like you were so easily deceived by your dishonest source. Your own link said 1934 was the warmest year in the USA. How stupid were you to either miss it yourself or to think a Cynic would miss it if you knew it was there?

Again, what will it take to get you to stop lying???

 

[Oddball]

That's not an answer, yet.

What will it take for you to specifically define what evidence is acceptable to you, and cease blowing smoke in making this about me?

 

[edthecynic]

That's not an answer, yet.

What will it take for you to specifically define what evidence is acceptable to you, and cease blowing smoke in making this about me?

But it is about you when YOU try to pass off USA temps as GLOBAL temps to support YOUR lie that the last decade was not the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement. YOU said the 1930s were the warmest decade, not 1999 to 2008.

So once again, what will it take to get YOU to stop lying???????????

 

[Oddball]

That's still not an answer.

It's OK to admit that your mind is made up and closed.