DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
*releases methane from distal aspect of alimentary canal into Buck's troposphere*
The farce behind liberal, "I'll tax you again" global warming bullshit - volcanoes!
- Thread starter Uncle Ben
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
and now he's implying that it's a conspiracy to lead to the new world order.
simply pathetic.
try recycling your old failed arguments instead.
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
Just say you fucking farted in his face you asshole, and shove that thesaurus up your ass. Impressive?! I say NO!
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
here......go smoke this
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
don't tell me what do, you little crack house Huggy Bear
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
so that would be a NO, you have no citation to explain how this alchemical process of "Intelligent Design" style balancing happens, you made an assumption.i declared that your omission of half the equation matched the exxon mobil/koch brothers' finding touted by the CATO institute, a political front group.
why? because math.
besides your own citation, which you purposely omitted half of?
your claim was about NATURAL co2 versus MANMADE co2.
you purposely omitted half of the natural co2 equation.
that's called fraud.
fraud is the only card you have left, ever since it was discovered that you are too retarded to do exponents. and now, you are also apparently too retarded read graphs too.
but you are just smart enough to attempt fraud, in your own retarded way.
and still, no cogent explanation how my comment about how human emissions are ABOVE THE BASELINE, and not 90% of the gross emissions constitutes fraud.
but then youre desperate, and im bored with smacking you around on this issue.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i didnt make gorbachev say that.
i didnt make any of those polticians, bureaucrats and shameless hack scientists say ANY of the bullshit they said. they did that all on their own.
kinda like you, they dont know how to shut their gobs, especially when they are facing serious problems like a study that shows they fucked up, and it's RIGHT, so they discuss a plot to stifle that research, for no other reason than their own hubris.
more than one person in a secretive plot to effect their will, despite the laws, traditions and ethical standards of their social group?
sounds like a Conspiracy to me.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
One might even go so far as to call it a scam, a flim-flam, a con or even...a hoax. I just like to call it the latest manufactured crisis to cripple big oil and coal. Nothing to see here, enjoy your day.
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
![diabeetus_cat[1].jpg](/data/attachments/2287/2287437-18697fe971e3eaac615b724f2bdf2b72.jpg)
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
That's one angry looking pussy.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"The CRU "is just one of many climate-research institutes that provide the underlying scientific basis for climate policy at national and international levels. The conspiracy theorists may be having a field day, but if they really knew academia they would also know that every published paper and data set is continually put through the wringer by other independent research groups. The information that makes it into the IPCC reports is some of the most rigorously tested and debated in any area of science." -David Reay, University of Edinburgh
"The controversy has no effect on the science and that while some of the emails reflect poor judgment, the evidence for human-made climate change is overwhelming." -James Hansen
"In response to the incident, 1,700 British scientists signed a joint statement circulated by the UK Met Office declaring their "utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
____________________________________________________________________________
"The Met Office statement proclaims that the "evidence and the science are deep and extensive" for climate change, involving "decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity". The statement also agrees with a conclusion by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) that human activities are "very likely" the cause of rising temperatures. The IPCC has stated that there is a 90 percent certainty that humans are behind climate change."
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/1210-hance_met.html
____________________________________________________________________________
"Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing
Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.
- A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
- Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
- A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
- The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
- The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
- Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
- Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
- An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
____________________________________________________________________________
- "The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
- Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
- E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings."
____________________________________________________________________________
"Findings
- Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
- In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
- But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science."
http://www.cce-review.org/
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
and you respond with copy/paste nonsense from a POLITICAL website regurgitating the findings of the "independent" review by penn state's own faculty, the same penn state that found no evidence of Joe Parterno's kddy diddling, shortly before the feds threw his ass in prison."The CRU "is just one of many climate-research institutes that provide the underlying scientific basis for climate policy at national and international levels. The conspiracy theorists may be having a field day, but if they really knew academia they would also know that every published paper and data set is continually put through the wringer by other independent research groups. The information that makes it into the IPCC reports is some of the most rigorously tested and debated in any area of science." -David Reay, University of Edinburgh
"The controversy has no effect on the science and that while some of the emails reflect poor judgment, the evidence for human-made climate change is overwhelming." -James Hansen
"In response to the incident, 1,700 British scientists signed a joint statement circulated by the UK Met Office declaring their "utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
____________________________________________________________________________
"The Met Office statement proclaims that the "evidence and the science are deep and extensive" for climate change, involving "decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity". The statement also agrees with a conclusion by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) that human activities are "very likely" the cause of rising temperatures. The IPCC has stated that there is a 90 percent certainty that humans are behind climate change."
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/1210-hance_met.html
____________________________________________________________________________
"Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing
Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
- A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
- Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
- A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
- The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html
- The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
- Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
- Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
- An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
____________________________________________________________________________
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
- "The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
- Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
- E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings."
____________________________________________________________________________
"Findings
- Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
- In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
- But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science."
http://www.cce-review.org/
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf
the same penn state that is now fighting tooth and nail to keep mann's "research" notes and emails out of the hands of investigators looking into GRANT FRAUD.
and the british govt felt the need to draft new laws so the next asshole who decides to "hide the decline" with crown funds will go to prison.
scientists are not grown in vats, and raised in creches to ensure they have no biases, and the receive no diamond tattoo of imperial conditioning to guarantee they are honest.
hell, the eco loons still celebrate the "contributions" of rachel carson despite the overwhelming evidence that her book "silent spring" contained ZERO scientific data, and her conclusions were based on her personal agenda.
why do so many people NOT trust the official stories these days? because they have been lied to over and over and over.
just like cannabis prohibition, global warming is a scheme to gain more control over the populace, and stuff more cash into the pockets of the touts.
if it was anything more than that, they wouldnt have to lie so much.
and whats more, the IPCC has concluded that it's "very Likely" that human action has caused "more than half" (51%) "of the 0.4 degree C warming between 1951 and 2010"
Very Likely = 70-80%
not 90%
90+% is characterized as "Almost Certain"
when you get to "Almost Certain" confidence levels, anthropogenic caused warming drops down to ~45% of the 0.4 degree C increase between 1951 and 2010.
if youre gonna pretend youre speaking the truth, you might wanna double check the statements of those you are parroting.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
i would fetch out the relevant data for you, but you need the reading practice.
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
There are 5 different sources in that post
OK, dismiss Penn. What about the other 7 independent investigations?
UK Parliament report
"Conclusions
135. Consideration of the complaints and accusations made against CRU has led us to three broad conclusions.
136. Conclusion 1 The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.
137. Conclusion 2 In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones's alleged attempt to "hide the decline"—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that "global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity".[184] It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.
138. Conclusion 3 A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet's decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38708.htm
The NOAA report?
The NSF report?
"4. There is no specific evidence that the Subject falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions amounted to research misconduct."
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf
The EPA report?
"Myth: The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails prove that temperature data and trends were manipulated.
Fact: Not true. Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.
Myth: The jury is still out on climate change and CRU emails undermine the credibility of climate change science overall.
Fact: Climate change is real and it is happening now. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have each independently concluded that warming of the climate system in recent decades is "unequivocal." This conclusion is not drawn from any one source of data but is based on multiple lines of evidence, including three worldwide temperature datasets showing nearly identical warming trends as well as numerous other independent indicators of global warming (e.g., rising sea levels, shrinking Arctic sea ice). Some people have "cherry-picked" a limited selection of CRU email statements to draw broad, unsubstantiated conclusions about the validity of all climate science."
http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/myths-facts.html
I suppose all of them are just political think tanks funded by Al Gore, amirite?
What laws? Cite the laws
"In response to the incident, 1,700 British scientists signed a joint statement circulated by the UK Met Office declaring their "utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities."
"The Met Office statement proclaims that the "evidence and the science are deep and extensive" for climate change, involving "decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity". The statement also agrees with a conclusion by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) that human activities are "very likely" the cause of rising temperatures. The IPCC has stated that there is a 90 percent certainty that humans are behind climate change."
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/1210-hance_met.html
The scientific method was designed exactly for that purpose. People who use this argument don't understand that because they don't understand how science works
Because a lot of funding goes into making people with no scientific background believe there is a controversy over climate change
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
a 190-years-in-the-making scam.
goddamn, some people are so fucking retarded that it just leaves me wondering.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
more conspiracy theory retardation. this is sad.
i guess they've given up trying to do exponents or read graphs or put out fraudulent data and have gone to PLAN X: full mental retardation.
pathetic.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38708.htm
that was a parliamentary BEATDOWN of the dishonesty, and shabby tactics of the CRU. how you think this supports your assertion is inexplicable.
the parliamentary panel did not have the scope, or the expertise to determine if the reports from CRU were flawed, since their Go-To experts on "climate change" were the accused.
they could NOT hand down indictments, and no laws were broken, as they were writ a the time.
so you repeat the same claims despite my having JUST explained the actual findings of ipcc5 to you.
ill repeat what IPCC ACTUALLY says, without the weaseling:
there is a 70-80% probability that human activity is responsible for 51% of the 0.4 degrees of observed warming between 1951 and 2010.
thats right numbnuts.
theres a 70-80% chance human activity resulted in ~0.2 degrees C warming over 60 years (that's 0.36 degrees F)
meanwhile, the OTHER 0.2 degrees C, and the earlier warming of ~1 degree C between 1855 and 1951 are NOT attributed to human activity, despite the claims by touts and hysterical loons like you.
as to the new laws in britain:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html
that loophole has been plugged, and there will be more investigations of the chicanery at CRU and the met office.
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
I know you wanna buy some blow. Just holler, man. I don't discriminate.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
good job on repeating your eggo box calculations and harebrained paranoia.
now try to address the other 7 independent investigations that completely exonerated abd cleared of all wrong doing the scientists behind that manufactured climategate scandal that was invented out of thin air.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
If you're not going to bother to even read the evidence, how can you possibly think you've come to the correct conclusion? I just posted the UK Parliament's conclusions in the exact post you quoted, here they are again;
UK Parliament report
"Conclusions
135. Consideration of the complaints and accusations made against CRU has led us to three broad conclusions.
136. Conclusion 1 The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.
137. Conclusion 2 In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones's alleged attempt to "hide the decline"—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that "global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity".[184] It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.
138. Conclusion 3 A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet's decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable."
So when you say "that was a parliamentary BEATDOWN of the dishonesty, and shabby tactics of the CRU", you are lying. You can deny that all you want, but anyone who reads the actual conclusions and what you said can see it for themselves.
Your argument amounts to "I don't understand how it works so it's not possible"
The IPCC says the amount of increase is significant enough to warrant action, and all the scientists who study the climate are in unanimous agreement . Nobody cares what you say, you deny ACC exists under the cloak of skepticism. You are taken as seriously as creationists are in debates about human origins.
A consistent claim you can never seem to find a credible source to back up..
Give me the name of the new laws that were added/changed as a direct result of climategate
Also, dailymail is the UK's breitbart, so not so sure I'd believe... anything they say