Obumanation, it is one small section selected from one email sent ten years ago. It's only conclusive evidence if you are 1) an imbecile 2) one of the shysters who selected that piece of text from that single Illegslly obtained emails because it, on the surface, appears to support thier agenda. The fact is the email means nothing and the fact that it has caused such a big deal is in it's self evidence for the weakness of the anti-global warming lobbies position. The fact that you clowns see this insignificant find as sone kind of smoking bullet shows how little you have to actually support your silly little illinformed opinions. Nate, they don't get to keep the money. They have to spend it researching the area they were given it for. Every penny has to be accounted for in scientific funding and the findings are released for people to scrutinise.
Very good. Try to discredit the evidence, albeit with no evidence of your own, declare victory, followed by an insult. Predictability is your best quality.
You got that right. I often wonder how the horrific smudged numbers of one or two degree increases causes areas that experience minus 70 degrees to melt, minus 68 is still below freezing. And why don't they call on all of us to plant a few trees? Or why don't they come down hard on governments that do a horrid job with traffic management?
They don't get to keep it??? So they're working for free? I'm not saying they would smudge for extra money, they would do it to keep their jobs. I would think that would be their incentive, above all else.
They get a wage, obviously. But we are talking about people who would find no difficulty finding other work in the scientific arena. They don't need to fabricate scare stories. Obumanation, the "evidence" discredits it's self. It's an illegally obtained carefully selected piece from an old email. I'd quite like to see the entire email, though I'm sure you aren't too bothered, you've seen the important bit. Ie the tiny bit which supports your illinformed opinion. If I got a small piece of an old email that appeared on the surface to suggest that obesity figures were massaged would it mean obesity doesn't exist? Or would it mean I may have found someone behaving dishonestly? I don't expect an answer to this, you will no doubt chicken out of answering any questions which make your illinformed opinion indefencible, but that's not your fault, it's because you lack intellectual integrity.
LoL. It isn't just the dictionary. It literally is language itself that you struggle with. If I obtained OJ Simpson's diary illegally, and "carefuly selected" the piece from it where he admits he killed his wife, would how I obtained the diary illegally, or only culled a particular portion to republish change the fact he killed his wife? Of even more interest is your out and out denial in the face of legitimate evidence that, that these people are intentionally fudging scientific data for political purposes. If you had a genuinely scientific bone in your body, that would bother you to the core. Its the kind of denial you can only get from a zealot. A true believer.
If you selected the text from "man, yesterday i killed my wife at mario cart, the bitch sucks ass at that game" and then refused to release the text in it's entirety then it would change the validity of your findings, and would also expose you for not being as interested in the truth or being correct as you are in selecting out of context portions of sentences which appear to support the conclusion you have previously come to. Which is what has happened here. It does bother me. it bothers me that an individual gives ignorant illiterates ammunition, albeit misguided, old, out of context, weak and irrelevant ammunition which they can claim is a mainstream tactic. if it was proven that he made up the numbers, or even massaged them slightly, i would be totally against it. 1) because he doesn't need to, the numbers stand up on their own, in their entirety and 2) he does the science no favours by behaving as dishonestly as the rest of the clowns who form the opinion then look for evidence to support it (are your ears burning?)
Fair enough. Too bad your sample phrase isn't analogous to the many encountered phrases from the released emails. I do, however, agree, they should release the entire enchilada to provide context. Then again, the scientists certainly have a chance to release their own supporting contexts from those very same emails to support claims like yours and yet they don't. That should tell any intelligent person all they need to know about what kind of politics is being played by these poliscienticians. I also want to complain about the lack of insults in your previous post, your failure to declare victory, and your failure to use the word facile. You had only one subtly implied insult, which border lined on clever. I fear that you may soon start providing facts in your arguments, acknowledging obvious truths where they appear in counter arguments, and stop topic swapping when you out and out loose. I won't know what to do with myself if that happens, so PLEASE, don't change. Keep the insults coming.
Here's a good website: http://climateaudit.org/ And of course it's about the money. Money and control as usual. I actually heard an NRP interview with Al Gore where they asked him what he though of people complaining that he made money off carbon credits. He said that they would call him a hypocrite if he didn't. Did the interviewer follow-up? Did he laugh at Al Gore's stupid comment? No. Of course not. As usual all you have to do is follow the money.
Climate change is real and man most likely is warming the earth. However, there is evidence that the earth is cooling and we are due for another ice age. The carrying capacity of the world is probably 10% of the current population unless we figure out a way to grow more food.
Al Gore invented the Internet and Global Warming Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years. http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-0/ Chilling new evidence from the Atlantic Ocean is raising fears that western Europe could soon be gripped by a mini ice age. "Mini Ice Age" May Be Coming Soon, Sea Study Warns
I do understand the evidence, and looking at it makes me more skeptical that climate change is caused by humans. Particularly parts on how much (or little) C02 humans emit. Climate change I am sure exists, but I neither believe humans are a major contributing factor (a minor one perhaps) or that it is an overally large issue. It has a few large consequences, but nothing we can't solve with the technology available to us today. And I haven't noticed any particular changes in temperature or climate here...we still get highs of ~35C and rain in the summer and all that. Like we have had for the last...70 years. There have been a few spikes, but the weather is, has and always will be sporadic and random. Even the tides have barely changed here (this isn't looking at records, I'm looking at the beach outside my window) the high tide still reaches the same 3 quarter mark as it has for the last 10 years I can remember. And unfortunately we are looking at another average, boring summer this year.
Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...d-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html This is what the global climate changes $cam is about. Have you ever wondered, even for a minute, why they are doing it this way? Why they are letting people sit on carbon credits and sell them to the highest bidder? If they really cared about the planet, why not just say there are stricter emissions limits. And, if there is some exceptional reason, they could give very limited exemptions. Why make it about shifting credits? There is no real product here. This is the derivatives market all over again. Why do they let countries like China operate factories without the same standards of operation used in the EU and US? You know why: they are psychcopaths. PS: Do a google search for: Time Magazine Jun 24, 1974.
So because some people are taking financial advantage of an imperfect system it's a "$cam"? that's poor logic. If we were to restrict the use of oil before we have a suitable substitute the effects on society would be comparable to the effects of using the oil irresponsibly. The answer is staring us in the face. We need to produce electricity using nuclear power and run cars on hydrogen. That's all we need to do. Of course people say "well that's up to the power companies". To which the answer is even more simple. Don't wait for them and nationalise power production with a view to later privatising it at a profit at a later date. "Waa waaa, well if china don't give a shit neither will i". Grow up. Yeah we have been seeing abnormalities in climate data for over 35 years. Even in 1974 they were seeing abnormalities. Of course they didn't understand the data fully and what it was indicative of, but they certainly see that something was going on. That was your point, right? Your point couldn't have been that 35 year old science wasn't as accurate as today's science, could it?
Al Gore and another inconvenience. I know its on Faux News, so it probably isn't true, but thought it was funny anyways.