Scientists Behaving Badly - More nails for the coffin of man-made global warming

[OohPooPahDoo]

Not stolen, no matter how much you try and deny it, the person or persons responsible are WHISTLEBLOWERS and releasing the information from inside!

What are their names?

Who cares.

Anyone who is interested in the validity of the emails.

Is what they are releasing accurate? According to the climate mafia the first time around they were indeed accurate and their emails.

This isn't the "first time around", so I don't really see your point.

When we know who released them, or when the people who allegedly wrote them verify that they are accurate, get back to me.

 

[RDD_1210]

Which is (1) mostly about increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, which few are arguing; and (2) based on predictive models, most of which are not falsifiable thus are not scientific.

Like I thought. You had no interest in actually learning about the topic. I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I really can't.

I'm pretty well versed in the topic. Your site is nothing new to me.

The increase in CO2 is not proof of much of anything except an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

When a model or any scientific hypothesis or theory is not falsifiable, it is not scientific, by definition.

Those are just facts.

So you're point is that yes, humans are increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere but you don't believe that CO2 increases affect planet temperature?

 

[Si modo]

Fearmongering is the go to card for american politicians.

Whether it's the sun, tan people, people who read a different holy book, the gov't not spending enough to save us from ourselves, their #1 goal is to have us constantly terrified so that we turn to them and give them more of our money and more power.

Fearmongering is also the go to card for activists.

 

[Si modo]

Like I thought. You had no interest in actually learning about the topic. I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I really can't.

I'm pretty well versed in the topic. Your site is nothing new to me.

The increase in CO2 is not proof of much of anything except an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

When a model or any scientific hypothesis or theory is not falsifiable, it is not scientific, by definition.

Those are just facts.

So you're point is that yes, humans are increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere but you don't believe that CO2 increases affect planet temperature?

Yes, humans are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Your second phrase requires more than a yes or no. CO2 does affect planet temperature as we know from the misnamed 'greenhouse' effect. The state of the science does not allow for ANY conclusion about the significance of man made CO2 on any warming. Correlation is not causation. And, data from nonfalsifiable models is not scientific data.

 

[RDD_1210]

I'm pretty well versed in the topic. Your site is nothing new to me.

The increase in CO2 is not proof of much of anything except an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

When a model or any scientific hypothesis or theory is not falsifiable, it is not scientific, by definition.

Those are just facts.

So you're point is that yes, humans are increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere but you don't believe that CO2 increases affect planet temperature?

Yes, humans are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Your second phrase requires more than a yes or no. CO2 does affect planet temperature as we know from the misnamed 'greenhouse' effect. The state of the science does not allow for ANY conclusion about the significance of man made CO2 on any warming. Correlation is not causation. And, data from nonfalsifiable models is not scientific data.

Ok thanks. When I have time, I'll look up this data (if it exists) and get back to you.

 

[paulitician]

When your time is up,your time is up. No one on this Board is going to die from Global Warming. Odds are it's gonna be something else. I really don't get all the panicking over it. It's such a waste of time & energy. If it's real,we'll either survive it or we wont. And that's the way it has always been on Planet Earth. Humans will either adapt to such changes or they'll go extinct. It really is that simple in the end. But no one on this Board right now needs to freak out about it. Everyone here will be dead from something completely unrelated to Global Warming. So just live for today. Life really is so short.

 

[Dr.Drock]

When your time is up,your time is up. No one on this Board is going to die from Global Warming. Odds are it's gonna be something else. I really don't get all the panicking over it. It's such a waste of time & energy. If it's real,we'll either survive it or we wont. And that's the way it has always been on Planet Earth. Humans will either adapt to such changes or they'll go extinct. It really is that simple in the end. But no one on this Board right now needs to freak out about it. Everyone here will be dead from something completely unrelated to Global Warming. So just live for today. Life really is so short.

Normally the fearmongering is how Global warming is going to kill your kids or grandkids.


It's the fearmongering and guilt strategy. "Do it for the children!!!" The same jibberish you hear about saving our kids from people in turbans, and saving our kids via Obamacare bla bla bla.

 

[paulitician]

When your time is up,your time is up. No one on this Board is going to die from Global Warming. Odds are it's gonna be something else. I really don't get all the panicking over it. It's such a waste of time & energy. If it's real,we'll either survive it or we wont. And that's the way it has always been on Planet Earth. Humans will either adapt to such changes or they'll go extinct. It really is that simple in the end. But no one on this Board right now needs to freak out about it. Everyone here will be dead from something completely unrelated to Global Warming. So just live for today. Life really is so short.

Normally the fearmongering is how Global warming is going to kill your kids or grandkids.


It's the fearmongering and guilt strategy. "Do it for the children!!!" The same jibberish you hear about saving our kids from people in turbans, and saving our kids via Obamacare bla bla bla.

Yes fear is the number one weapon for all politicians. And they never hesitate to use it. Anytime they want something they just get out there and scare the sheep. Unfortunately it usually is very successful. Most people are scared very easily. It doesn't take much these days. It's all part of the Government/Media Complex. The People are bombarded with fear mongering 24/7 via their Politicians and Media.

Global Warming has been ridiculously over-hyped and fear mongered. But some have come around and aren't buying into the fear anymore. And the Global Warming advocates are now the ones who are getting scared. Their agenda is crumbling. So i guess they should be scared. Oh how the tables can turn.

 

[bripat9643]

When we know who released them, or when the people who allegedly wrote them verify that they are accurate, get back to me.

Michael Mann has already admitted the emails are authentic.

 

[westwall]

What are their names?

Who cares.

Anyone who is interested in the validity of the emails.

Is what they are releasing accurate? According to the climate mafia the first time around they were indeed accurate and their emails.

This isn't the "first time around", so I don't really see your point.

When we know who released them, or when the people who allegedly wrote them verify that they are accurate, get back to me.

When the original writers confirm they are theirs your comments are irrelevent....no matter how loud you yell!

 

[BlindBoo]

The fact that information is released at an opportune moment doesn't make it propaganda. Deap Throat wanted to derail the Nixon Adminisration. That didn't make his information bogus. The reason you release negative information is to put a stop to the nefarious activities it exposes.

Obviously, the person behind this release wants to derail the climate conference, but what sane intelligent person wouldn't want to derail a conflaguration of con artists and humbugs?

But I think "Deep Throat" actually gave the reporters facts not snippets of personal communications.....as was quoted in the post.


"Mann called the new batch of emails "truly pathetic" and said they reflect desperation among climate deniers, who have failed to pick holes in the science. "They have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat."

Yes the targets of WHISTLEBLOWERS allways try and denigrate the releases of information. I find it amazing that anyone would castigate this person or persons for releasing information that shows beyond a doubt that the warmist science is crap, they even admit it in their own words and yet you still defend them.

Sad, very sad.

The previously released emails simply do not shows anything beyond a doubt. The only way people who use those stolen e-mails is by taking snipets out of context, unless of course you have some actual data that says otherwise. I imagine this next batch will produce the same results. That is the bat-shit crazies will go nutz over nuthin.

 

[westwall]

But I think "Deep Throat" actually gave the reporters facts not snippets of personal communications.....as was quoted in the post.


"Mann called the new batch of emails "truly pathetic" and said they reflect desperation among climate deniers, who have failed to pick holes in the science. "They have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat."

Yes the targets of WHISTLEBLOWERS allways try and denigrate the releases of information. I find it amazing that anyone would castigate this person or persons for releasing information that shows beyond a doubt that the warmist science is crap, they even admit it in their own words and yet you still defend them.

Sad, very sad.

The previously released emails simply do not shows anything beyond a doubt. The only way people who use those stolen e-mails is by taking snipets out of context, unless of course you have some actual data that says otherwise. I imagine this next batch will produce the same results. That is the bat-shit crazies will go nutz over nuthin.

Nothing was stolen (no matter how hard you try to make it so) and nothing was taken out of context. The reason why the scientists involved were "exhonerated" is because they were investigated by themselves. It's like having a murderer be the prosecuter and judge in his case.

Here is a email string for you to peruse where a NCAR scientist very clearly states that they are unable to do anything they claim. This is fom one insider to another.

You may choose to remain as blind as your moniker but the rest of the world has moved on.


cc: Simon Tett <sfbtett@meto.xxx>
date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:30:43 -0600 (MDT)
from: Tom Wigley <wigley@meeker.xxxx>
subject: Re: PRESCIENT: Draft plan — updated
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.xxx>

Keith and Simon (and no-one else),

Paleo data cannot inform us *directly* about how the climate sensitivity
(as climate sensitivity is defined). Note the stressed word. The whole
point here is that the text cannot afford to make statements that are
manifestly incorrect. This is *not* mere pedantry. If you can tell me
where or why the above statement is wrong, then please do so.

Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done
using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one
could do better with paleo data, then you’re fooling yourself. This is
fine, but there is no need to try to fool others by making extravagant
claims.

Tom

On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Keith Briffa wrote:

> Dear all ,
> I should first say that I have communicating directly with Simon on a
> few points, but realize that it is better to send these comments to
> everyone. My only feeling now is that we are tinkering too much at the
> margins and have passed the point of diminishing returns for this effort
> some time ago. As long as the plan does not give a false impression of
> exclusion to some of the community , it is time to get it out. The open
> meeting will provide an opportunity for soliciting the full range of
> potential proposals. The SSC will then have to decide on the balance of
> priorities. The plan expresses the rationale of the Thematic Programme well
> enough now.
> In the area of pedantry, however, I do not like the inclusion of the
> statement
> saying that palaeo -data are not likely to be able to inform us directly about
> climate sensitivity . This is a moot point , and even if true , is not needed.
> However, I do feel we need to put a limit on discussion and issue this call
> now.
> At 04:22 PM 6/30/00 +0100, Simon Tett wrote:
> >Dear All,
> > I got some more faxed comments from Tom and have incorporated
> > them into
> >the draft. I attach it for you all to look at.
> >Tom made two comments which I think need to be drawn to your attention.
> >
> >1) The current draft has a tone that suggests that model development and
> >simulations would not be funded by PRESCIENT. I don’t think that was our
> >intention so I’ve added some text which I hope reduces that danger. Some
> >of that added text is ugly! (it was friday after all!) Please let me
> >know what you think!
> >
> >2) Tom also made a comment about paleo-estimates of climate sensitivity
> >– the current text reflects (I hope) his faxed comment. However, I
> >don’t think I agree with it! Comments please.
> >
> >3) The draft contains various comments which I’d appreciate responses on
> >as well.
> >
> >Simon
>
> –
> Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
> Phone: xxxx
>

 

[paulitician]

Lets face it,you aint gonna die from Global Warming. The odds are you're gonna die from something that has absolutely nothing to do with Global Warming. So stop panicking over it and just live. The sky really isn't falling. Get out and enjoy your warm sunny afternoon. I know i will.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

When we know who released them, or when the people who allegedly wrote them verify that they are accurate, get back to me.

Michael Mann has already admitted the emails are authentic.

Doesn't say that in the OP.

 

[Si modo]

When we know who released them, or when the people who allegedly wrote them verify that they are accurate, get back to me.

Michael Mann has already admitted the emails are authentic.

Doesn't say that in the OP.

He confirms they are his.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Michael Mann has already admitted the emails are authentic.

Doesn't say that in the OP.

He confirms they are his.

"Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad."

OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?

 

[Si modo]

Doesn't say that in the OP.

He confirms they are his.

"Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad."

OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?

Who said that?

Oh, you did.

These recent emails and the previous ones clearly demonstrate his and others' lack of scientific integrity.

 

[zonly1]

No allegations regarding the behavior of scientists can EVER suffice as a refutation of global warming. In order to account for the evidence we have, such behavior would have to amount to a conspiracy among thousands of scientists, and in effect the entire scientific community would have to be corrupt from top to bottom -- an assertion utterly without credibility.

So no proof that humans are the cause, in fact no one talks about the sun earth system in terms of electro magnetism. You're windbag explanation didn't include that conclusion.

 

[westwall]

Doesn't say that in the OP.

He confirms they are his.

"Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad."

OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?

Of course they are grasshopper. And whistleblowers are allowed to expose fraud wherever it occurs, no? Or can whistlblowers only expose bad behavior in companies you don't like?

 

[bripat9643]

OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?

You aren't really this stupid, are you?