I guess Zat is going to paste his fake data again. Seriously, nothing is more convincing than fake data. It proves ... well... anything you want it to.

Fake Global Warming Data... Fake Stimulus... Fake Job Numbers.... Dems are on a roll.

Alleged e-mails. Anybody could make such a claim. Doesn't change what we have seen with our own eyes. All of the physical evidence of warming are hoaxes? Who's making the Arctic more ice free for example?

The title of this thread should be "Climatologists Allegedly Colluded in Manipulating Global Warming Data". I for one won't take the word of some blog just because it says stuff.

Wonder what email client Arrhenius used in 1896?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

idiots

Who's making the Arctic more ice free for example?

Not who. What.

And that would be naturally recurring climate cycles.

Wonder what email client Arrhenius used in 1896?

AOL?

The woolly mammoth has been extinct since the ice age. ... A few have been found frozen whole even with grass still in their stomach. ...

What's amazing is that these fuckers kept believing in man-made global warming, even when their own data was proving them wrong. We should call this the Al Gore Effect. Data is irrelevant when you really, really believe something is true. Take a gander at the inside cover photo in Gore's new propaganda book. The Photoshop folks went wild creating hurricanes and deleting arctic ice. These dumb fucks are truly amazing.

"Data is irrelevant when you really, really believe something is true. " - SpokaneJim

The article didn't specify how many climatologists were colluding.

I don't know what this really means. Perhaps we will learn more some time soon.

However, I think that we need to be able to trust these folks and news stories like this do not help. The group of real scientists need to distance themselves from this if they expect to be taken seriously going forward. I, for one, would like to believe these people when they are correct.

From the article:

Prof Bob Watson, the chief scientific advisor at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said, "Evidence for climate change is irrefutable. The world's leading scientists overwhelmingly agree what we're experiencing is not down to natural variation."

"With this overwhelming scientific body of evidence failing to take action to tackle climate change would be the wrong thing to do the impacts here in Britain and across the world will worsen and the economic consequences will be catastrophic."
(
It would be nice if rightwing hacks would actually read the articles they cite for a change.)

I think our first clue should have been when the opposing scientists were censored.

Clue #2 was when the EPA ruled C02 as a pollutant.

Oh well if Bob Watson says it...

"Money, it's a gas
Grab that cash with both hands
And make a stash

New car, caviar, four star daydream
Think I'll buy me a football team

I'm in the hi-fidelity
First class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet"

Pink Floyd

Andyuhenet: Don't be a twit. The very claims of the title of this thread are refuted within the text of the article cited.

I can't read with an erection.

And even when you can read, you level of comprehension is pathetic. Based on your posts, clearly you are one the 26%.

I didn't know there was a test.

My memory must be failing too because I don't remember asking you for your opinion.

What kind of rightwing idiot posts on a leftwing blog and then states that he is not asking for the opinion of others? LOL. I swear, the stupidity of rightwingers is so extreme that if one did not see it for oneself, it would be assumed to be an exaggeration.

Oh, Excuse me. I was soliciting intelligent comments only.

I guess I forgot to say that.

. I swear, the stupidity of rightwingers is so extreme that if one did not see it for oneself, it would be assumed to be an exaggeration.

May I borrow your broad brush for a minute, m'8?

bOoB.

All left wingers are bat shit crazy.

Thanks, here's your brush back, but it doesn't seem to work for me. I guess my IQ isn't low enough.

So MT, referring you back to the article which YOU posted is not an intelligent comment? LOL.

The parallels between the global warming crowd and religious fanatics are many. Just to point out a few. Isn't Cap N Trade a lot like Indulgences? OK go ahead and sin, just give some money to the church and they will look the other way. Someone pointed out earlier how the believers believe regardless of the facts. What about them wanting to silence and ostracize those who disagree. Didn't I read this week where Muslim countries want to put blasphemers in jail? How is that different from people losing their jobs because they are not believers?
Fanatics are all the same, whether in the name of religion or global warming.

The thing about energy is food production also requires a considerable amount of it. Taxing energy is an indirect way of taxing the poor people.

So MT, referring you back to the article which YOU posted is not an intelligent comment? LOL.

#25 | Posted by moder8

Please come back when you have something intelligent to say.

quote;
"The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ...
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil.
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !"

"Some of the most embarrassing e-mails are attributed to Philip Jones, the Director of the CRU; Keith Briffa, his assistant; Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia; Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona . .

One such e-mail makes references to the famous "hockey-stick" graph published by Mann in the journal Nature:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (
ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

hmmm?

I wonder if Zat got the e-mail.

Garbage in garbage out...

"I wonder if Zat got the e-mail."

#31 | Posted by triviallyobvious at 2009-11-20 10:30 PM

The only email is in your tiny excuse for a mind.

Your DNA won't make the cull.

So many Social Psychology PhDs, so little time.

(AT)
CRU director Phillip Jones confirmed that the incriminating documents, which have been widely disseminated online, ARE IN FACT GENUINE.
whether indeed the labor of hackers, or instead that of a CRU whistleblower, the contents of the FOI2009 folder are now public record - -

the names of the email exchangers represent a who's who of the world's leading climate alarmism scientists, including Stephen Schneider, Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen.

And the words within seemingly betray an organized apparatus of deception.

who'da thunk it??

It will be interesting to see how long the "Warmers" keep believing after the fraud is exposed.

photo shop

a dems best friend.

Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist and prominent skeptic who is among those attacked in the purloined emails . . .

Says - - "This isn't a smoking gun, it's a mushroom cloud."

prisonplanet.com? I know you righties are all full of shit but aren't you all the same nut jobs that think 911 was not an inside job, but now you suddenly think Alex Jones is right on about climate change? You can't count the number of glaciers left in Glacier national Park (that are over 10,000 years old) which is down from over 150, when the park opened less then 100m years ago, to less then what you can count on your fingers and toes today, and those are expected to all disappear by 2030, but still you morons think this is "natural warming" or worse not happening at all. With idiots like you playing blogger boy, we are truly all fucked.

"when the park opened less then 100m years ago"

It's a typo blogger boys. The National Park was created in 1910.

Ringmaster, what about the glaciers that formed Yosemite National Park? What about all the other Ice ages that have happened before?

They all melted thousands of years ago, long before man made global warming.

If you want to use something happening like glaciers menting to prove MMGW then it needs to be something that only happens because of MMGW not something that has happened many times in the past.

Didn't glaciers form the great lakes?

Didn't glaciers form the great lakes?

#41 | Posted by mysterytoy

tho that Glacier was GONE when I got here . . . recent winters cause many old-timeers to swear it's attempting a comeback

note - re; "flow up to the Husdon Bay" refers to north/up direction . . NOT uphill

thx

They didn't do it in 100 years. Get real guys.

But on topic, I read on Fox that the hacked emails in question were sent 10 years ago and taken out of context. It figures. Nothing but a blog fest.

But on topic, I read on Fox that the hacked emails in question were sent 10 years ago and taken out of context. It figures. Nothing but a blog fest.

#43 | Posted by RingMaster

perhaps ya should make an effort to educate yourself BEFORE forming an your OPINION

thanks in advance

a sample header from the CRU "whistleblower" emails

From: Gifford Miller
To: Darrell Kaufman
Subject: Re: Fwd: Your Science manuscript 1173983 at revision
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:23:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: David Schneider , Nick McKay , Caspar Ammann , Bradley Ray , Keith Briffa , Miller Giff , Otto-Bleisner Bette , Overpeck Jonathan

Darrell (from AGU Toronto):

perhaps ya should make an effort to educate yourself BEFORE forming an your OPINION

thanks in advance

LOL. Why do you think I am laughing so loud. I got the information from your revered Fox news. Now I am ROFLOL

I wonder how much taxpayer money was spent on this fake data.

"thanks in advance"

LOL. Why do you think I am laughing so loud. I got the information from your revered Fox news. Now I am ROFLOL

#45 | Posted by RingMaster

good luck & remember . . . "situational awareness";

know where you are online - -

even the Library of Congress has a fiction section

Ringmaster is the guy who is afraid that "sudden" warming of the oceans might cause earthquakes. That was truly funny.

He bloviates as if he is an expert, yet he admittedly makes snap judgements on topics he knows nothing about. He doesn't know the key players in climate science, he doesn't know that tree rings figure in significantly (he asked me "who cares about tree rings anyway?") when these clowns claim that what is happening is unprecedented. This is HUGE. But he would never get it because he doesn't go into the details. He swims in the Kool Aid , he doesn't just drink it. He's a blowhard. Or she is...not sure what it is.