Lady.hawke

Climategate

Recommended Posts

Not so. The emails etc are worried about the effect a minor cooling trend within a much larger warming trend would have on the discussion. Some scientists were concerned that the skeptics would use this minor blip as ammo. As always, the emails themselves are a far greater weapon to the skeptics than the subject they were discussing as the skeptics can now blow them out of all proportion.

 

Global warming (or, more correctly, climate change) continues on it's merry way regardless.

 

...and here comes the spin. Denying that this blows the cover off of GW isn't going to make it go away. The GW crowd is in major damage control mode now and will say just about ANYTHING to make this go away. And besides that, why would I trust the response from the same people who have been conspiring in the first place? It's being reported ALL over the world except in the US. Geez, I wonder why? It's not because the media is completely in the tank for Obama, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...and here comes the spin. Denying that this blows the cover off of GW isn't going to make it go away. The GW crowd is in major damage control mode now and will say just about ANYTHING to make this go away. And besides that, why would I trust the response from the same people who have been conspiring in the first place? It's being reported ALL over the world except in the US. Geez, I wonder why? It's not because the media is completely in the tank for Obama, is it?

 

 

You and ladyhawke should get a room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You and ladyhawke should get a room.

 

Using scorn and ridicule to advance your argument? Or do you have something more than superficial attacks against people who disagree with you?

 

I'm disappointed. You should be as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Using scorn and ridicule to advance your argument? Or do you have something more than superficial attacks against people who disagree with you?

 

I'm disappointed. You should be as well.

 

 

I read your post at the top of the page and realize you live in a much different world: they're not reporting on emails in this country because of Obama? Did he invent global warming as an issue? Additionally, ursa made some very reasonable and lucid points that you casually dismiss as part of a coverup without offering any real evidence short of these supposed emails.

 

Also, a quick check of bbc.co.uk shows they aren't reporting it EITHER.

 

No, you'd rather spout of emotionally about something you won't really look into because that's too hard. Hence, you and ladyhawke should get a room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...and here comes the spin. Denying that this blows the cover off of GW isn't going to make it go away. The GW crowd is in major damage control mode now and will say just about ANYTHING to make this go away. And besides that, why would I trust the response from the same people who have been conspiring in the first place? It's being reported ALL over the world except in the US. Geez, I wonder why? It's not because the media is completely in the tank for Obama, is it?

 

Have to agree here!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read your post at the top of the page and realize you live in a much different world: they're not reporting on emails in this country because of Obama? Did he invent global warming as an issue? Additionally, ursa made some very reasonable and lucid points that you casually dismiss as part of a coverup without offering any real evidence short of these supposed emails.

 

Also, a quick check of bbc.co.uk shows they aren't reporting it EITHER.

 

No, you'd rather spout of emotionally about something you won't really look into because that's too hard. Hence, you and ladyhawke should get a room.

 

Ursa did not make any valid points except spin control. You mention that "it's too hard" for me to look into yet you're riding on Ursa's post and you yourself mention that you did a "quick" look yourself. Looks like it's the pot calling the kettle black as far as effort is concerned.

 

So you think by reporting the story it DOESN'T hurt Obama's agenda? of course it does since he's such a huge GW advocate.

 

Let me help you with who'se NOT reporting it since apparently you think it's not being covered anywhere: http://www.google.com/search?q=Climategate...lient=firefox-a

 

The only people that should be getting a room are you and Ursa. Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ursa did not make any valid points except spin control. You mention that "it's too hard" for me to look into yet you're riding on Ursa's post and you yourself mention that you did a "quick" look yourself. Looks like it's the pot calling the kettle black as far as effort is concerned.

 

So you think by reporting the story it DOESN'T hurt Obama's agenda? of course it does since he's such a huge GW advocate.

 

Let me help you with who'se NOT reporting it since apparently you think it's not being covered anywhere: http://www.google.com/search?q=Climategate...lient=firefox-a

 

The only people that should be getting a room are you and Ursa. Good luck with that.

 

 

You claim the media is in the tank for Obama. I do not agree with that particular >cough< take on that.

 

You posted that link to prove what? That the story isn't getting covered here only internationally? Well, there are a lot of US links on that page. I merely pointed out the BBC doesn't have it on their front page, just like CNN doesn't either. In other words, it's being reported about equally everywhere. You're saying it isn't yet provided links to the contrary. What is it?

 

Also you're acting as if these emails mean the arctic is no longer losing ice at an accelerating pace. If that isn't proof of glabal warming then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe the sky is purple?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You claim the media is in the tank for Obama. I do not agree with that particular >cough< take on that.

 

You posted that link to prove what? That the story isn't getting covered here only internationally? Well, there are a lot of US links on that page. I merely pointed out the BBC doesn't have it on their front page, just like CNN doesn't either. In other words, it's being reported about equally everywhere. You're saying it isn't yet provided links to the contrary. What is it?

 

Also you're acting as if these emails mean the arctic is no longer losing ice at an accelerating pace. If that isn't proof of glabal warming then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe the sky is purple?

So it is OK for scientists to delete e-mails that don't seem to match what they thought science would tell them because ice is melting at an accelerating pace? It is OK to purposely deceive people? The issue is that scientists (yes scientists) are deleting information that seems to go against what these scientists want people to see.

 

There is no way this issue is getting the coverage it would be getting if people deleted e-mails about waterboarding under Bush's watch and it was found out.

 

How do you trust any of what these dudes say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it is OK for scientists to delete e-mails that don't seem to match what they thought science would tell them because ice is melting at an accelerating pace? It is OK to purposely deceive people? The issue is that scientists (yes scientists) are deleting information that seems to go against what these scientists want people to see.

 

There is no way this issue is getting the coverage it would be getting if people deleted e-mails about waterboarding under Bush's watch and it was found out.

 

How do you trust any of what these dudes say?

 

Reliable sources tell me that no raw data was deleted. Why is this not being reported? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reliable sources tell me that no raw data was deleted. Why is this not being reported? :wacko:

Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0924988354.html

 

Yea let's spend tons of money and put a lot of trust in what these guys say science is telling us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reliable sources tell me that no raw data was deleted. Why is this not being reported? :wacko:

 

Your sources are clearly not reliable. Read on, my friend. Knowledge is power:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6936328.ece

 

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
Edited by tosberg34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your sources are clearly not reliable. Read on, my friend. Knowledge is power:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6936328.ece

 

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

 

Have to agree here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails. It seems that global warming was a complete hoax:

 

Climategate

I was expecting a smoking gun, but I couldn't tell what the hell I was supposed to take away from that incoherent daisy-chain of speculation. I even read the comments, but couldn't find a logical nexus between the facts alleged and the conclusion the story was struggling to reach. Whatever that article was supposed to be, I found it neither objective nor persuasive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup, the propagandists are tripping over themselves trying to blow this up, when there is nothing of substance.

 

You mean the propoganda of global warming, of course.

 

Denial is not only a river in Egypt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean the propoganda of global warming, of course.

 

Denial is not only a river in Egypt.

 

are u really this dumb or are you fishen??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean the propoganda of global warming, of course.

 

Denial is not only a river in Egypt.

For the record, my post paraphrased an article I read in the Mpls Star Tribune, a left-leaning newspaper, so this IS being reported here. I also pointed out that the emails were intended to address what to say about a minor opposing trend within a major trend. I also said that the emails themselves will turn out to be worse than the easily explainable blip they were discussing. The likes of you being all over them bears that out.

 

The scientists anticipated a problem with skeptics jumping on the minor trend as proof positive that the major trend does not exist, in much the same way as some skeptics will say that a week of cold weather means global warming doesn't exist. They would be far better off just ignoring the ostrich fraternity and certainly would be better off letting the massive preponderance of evidence speak for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now if Fox news or rushbeck picked this up it would be true. however the times is an unreliable tabloid that is only out to smear the good name of polluters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are u really this dumb or are you fishen??

 

I don't agree with you and I'm dumb? That's pretty shallow. I guess you attack the messenger when you're in damage control mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating..

 

I get e-mails from Nigerian oil prince barons all the time.

 

I do not find them highly illuminating at all . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get e-mails from Nigerian oil prince barons all the time.

 

I do not find them highly illuminating at all . . . .

you mean i'm not going to get all those diamonds??? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.