|
U-Know! Forum » Another Climate-Gate Leak... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
jshell 333 posts |
Nov 22, 2011, 15:14
|
||
|
Hot on the heels of the IPPCC summary last week saying thre's no discernable human influence in observational climate data (that's right, they've said it - with the usual bullshit caveats - perhaps in 30 years, etc), there's been another 'climate-gate' style email leak. Here it is, hopefully people will start to see what a fucking sham this Global Warming garbage is! http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/breaking-news-foia-2011-has-arrived/ Serisouly, just go read some of the shenanigans and data-manipulation. Just a taste: I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming. Trenberth: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...] Thorne: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run. Carter:
|
|||
baza 1308 posts |
Nov 23, 2011, 00:44
|
||
|
"The hackers and their allies are resorting to desperate measures to distract the public when our focus should be on how to respond to climate change." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15846886
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Edited Nov 23, 2011, 07:31
Nov 23, 2011, 07:06
|
||
|
baza wrote: "The hackers and their allies are resorting to desperate measures to distract the public when our focus should be on how to respond to climate change." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15846886 From the bbc and Richard Black who've hit the news for their financially-led adherence to the 'New Religion', coz that's what it is now - a Religion. Nice story here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063737/BBCs-Mr-Climate-Change-accepted-15-000-grants-university-rocked-global-warning-scandal.html It staggers me that so many Socialist support a theory that is unproven (IPCC's own words) and re-distributes wealth from the poor to the rich via windfarm subsidies and feed in tarrifs paid for through energy bills... It hits only the poorest earners in society, of course. But, hey, perhaps I simply don't understand. |
|||
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Edited Nov 23, 2011, 07:33
Nov 23, 2011, 07:33
|
||
Climate change/global warming due to man's activities is a sad reality. End of. Depsite all the smokescreens and chess games funded by vested interests etc, and occasional examples of some shakey pro-data at times, the reality of the fact is easily discernible with oppen minded patience and research. The conclusion you reach speaks for itself. Anything else is convenient denial.
|
|||
|
Annexus Quam 926 posts |
Nov 23, 2011, 11:58
|
||
|
Isn't this latest reveal-one-IPCC-email-out-of-5000-emails-means-global-scandal-in-climate-science in timing with the next upcoming conference on climate change (once more a few weeks before)? Seems like some of those emails were also kept in store (from the last batch) for this next round of attacks... A Sceptic of the Sceptics
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Nov 23, 2011, 13:55
|
||
|
The Sea Cat wrote: Climate change/global warming due to man's activities is a sad reality. End of. Depsite all the smokescreens and chess games funded by vested interests etc, and occasional examples of some shakey pro-data at times, the reality of the fact is easily discernible with oppen minded patience and research. The conclusion you reach speaks for itself. Anything else is convenient denial. So, you disagree with the IPCC's recent report for policymakers? Cool, show us the man-made signal in climate change then, coz they can't. Despite the CO2 rises, we've had 2 years of falling sea temperatures and levels which doesn't fit with the scaremongering...but you know better than NASA. The global temps are observed lower than the IPCC's last high, medium AND low predictions which is WHY they CANNOT spearate the human signal. Try something, just have a read at those e-mails from our climatologists as you can see exactly what they are doing by ignoring anything that doesn't fit with the religion. The problem is, you won't. Just like the IPCC will not entertain dissenting views at all. Again, as shown clearly in the e-mails. So, that'll be robust science then. Shame! |
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Nov 23, 2011, 14:01
|
||
|
Why do you think that the govt are cost cutting absolutely everywhere? Debt? Austerity? Nah, it's to pay for all of this carbon obsession. Cutting back on welfare, housing, social security, etc is now paying for these lies. Hey-ho, seemingly we'll save the planet from a couple of degrees C.
|
|||
|
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Edited Nov 23, 2011, 14:46
Nov 23, 2011, 14:45
|
||
|
jshell wrote: The Sea Cat wrote: Climate change/global warming due to man's activities is a sad reality. End of. Depsite all the smokescreens and chess games funded by vested interests etc, and occasional examples of some shakey pro-data at times, the reality of the fact is easily discernible with oppen minded patience and research. The conclusion you reach speaks for itself. Anything else is convenient denial. So, you disagree with the IPCC's recent report for policymakers? Cool, show us the man-made signal in climate change then, coz they can't. Despite the CO2 rises, we've had 2 years of falling sea temperatures and levels which doesn't fit with the scaremongering...but you know better than NASA. The global temps are observed lower than the IPCC's last high, medium AND low predictions which is WHY they CANNOT spearate the human signal. Try something, just have a read at those e-mails from our climatologists as you can see exactly what they are doing by ignoring anything that doesn't fit with the religion. The problem is, you won't. Just like the IPCC will not entertain dissenting views at all. Again, as shown clearly in the e-mails. So, that'll be robust science then. Shame! I don't need to try anything. Shame ? None whatsoever.
|
|||
|
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Nov 23, 2011, 14:47
|
||
Why do you need to reply to my post twice ? My viewpoint is clear enough.
|
|||
|
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Nov 23, 2011, 14:48
|
||
Nail on head.
|
| Pages: 3 – [ 1 2 3 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
