On Nov 22, 12:04*pm, John H wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258...html#printMode
--

John H

Heres the ****head responsible for this drivel.......

http://i539.photobucket.com/albums/f...32218_8642.jpg

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:47:48 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


I'm not saying that pollution isn't an issue, that eco systems don't
need to be protected, fish stocks replenished, research done on
non-fossil fuel energy delivery, etc. These are important issues, but
they've been lost in the great Global Warming Wars which, as it is
turning out, is a bogus crisis.

How do you jibe this, with your following statement? I mean, how do you
know it's a "bogus crisis", when there is no "real research and science"?

Hopefully we can start doing real research and science once this blows
over.

Isn't that exactly what is happening right now, albeit more publicly than
is normal for most science? The process is, by nature, ugly, but science
*is* doing it's job.

For those flat earthers, those that think these emails are some sort of
smoking gun, you may want to consider:

"More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no
evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros
nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the
MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the
falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/
vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the
hackers also being in on the plot though."

From:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:47:55 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:


How can these Lemmings ignore all the faked science? I just don't get
it, only because they are stuck on ideology?? Must be.. Bunch of good
little Harrys...

"Faked science" is easy to ignore. OTOH, how do you ignore the real
science? ;-)

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:12:33 -0500, BAR wrote:


"University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more
than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how
many of the stolen items were authentic."

“Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm
that all of this material is genuine.�

There was 160 MB of data stolen. Obviously, it would take some time to
confirm if it was authentic. Obviously, someone who was willing to break
the law (hacking), and post private information publicly, *might* not be
above changing the data, if they have an agenda.

You don't think they have an agenda, do you?

This is priceless!

If you weren't a skeptic before you should be now.

Why? Where's the smoking gun? The blue dress? Private emails are
easily taken out of context, and even with that caveat, I haven't seen
anything in those emails that debunks the science.

BTW, I've been banned from Mikey Mann's Blog.

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:16:36 -0600, thunder
wrote:

You don't think they have an agenda, do you?

You know, for a really smart guy, you have some amazing blind spots.

OF COURSE THEY HAD AN AGENDA!!!

Jesus - read through the material.

Damn man...

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:16:36 -0600, thunder
wrote:

Why? Where's the smoking gun? The blue dress? Private emails are
easily taken out of context, and even with that caveat, I haven't seen
anything in those emails that debunks the science.

Read the exchange between Keiller and Briffa at the bottom of this
analysis.

Neither one was answered.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../11/024995.php

In fact, read the whole thing.

On 11/23/09 7:29 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:16:36 -0600,
wrote:

Why? Where's the smoking gun? The blue dress? Private emails are
easily taken out of context, and even with that caveat, I haven't seen
anything in those emails that debunks the science.

Read the exchange between Keiller and Briffa at the bottom of this
analysis.

Neither one was answered.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../11/024995.php

In fact, read the whole thing.


Pimping that right-wing blog again, eh?

--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
achmed the sock puppet, or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting
your time by trying to *communicate* with me through rec.boats, because,
well, you are among the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster, and I
don't read the vomit you post, except by accident on occasion. As
always, have a nice, simple-minded day.

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:22:16 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:47:48 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


I'm not saying that pollution isn't an issue, that eco systems don't
need to be protected, fish stocks replenished, research done on
non-fossil fuel energy delivery, etc. These are important issues, but
they've been lost in the great Global Warming Wars which, as it is
turning out, is a bogus crisis.

How do you jibe this, with your following statement? I mean, how do you
know it's a "bogus crisis", when there is no "real research and science"?

Hopefully we can start doing real research and science once this blows
over.

Isn't that exactly what is happening right now, albeit more publicly than
is normal for most science? The process is, by nature, ugly, but science
*is* doing it's job.

It's not if data sets are hidden and results are not properly analyzed
and/or included to advance a public policy agenda.

For those flat earthers, those that think these emails are some sort of
smoking gun, you may want to consider:

"More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no
evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros
nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the
MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the
falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/
vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the
hackers also being in on the plot though."

From:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/

Oh please - here's the "directorship" of RealClimate.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...tributor-bios/

Notice a prominent name there? And Schmidt isn't exaclty an objective
observer - he's participated in this data fraud and is a prominent
eco-warrior.

I don't know a lot about Dr. Ammann but I noticed a couple of
interesting things in his CV - most notably this: IPCC AR4 Reviewer
Synthesis Report, Chapter 9 and contributing author.

Think they might have something to protect here?

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:18:24 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:49:45 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:04:44 -0500, John H
wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258...html#printMode

And look who is in the middle of this conspiracy to eliminate dissent
and supress free and open scientific discovery.

Michael "Mr. Hockey Stick" Mann.

This guy has done more damage to national economies than anybody else
in modern history.

He should be put in jail to rot forever.

Yup, he and his 'hockey stick' are right in the middle of it.

Another f*ing joke!

You want to see how it all unfolded?

John Hindraker has done yeoman work on the email files.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../11/024995.php

I can say this - Steve McIntyre feels completely vindicated and while
he's too nice a guy and much to humble to toot his own horn, there's a
smile on his face today.

Real science might actually win the day.

Pretty damning stuff... These folks are full of **** and they know it...

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:12:33 -0500, BAR wrote:


"University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more
than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how
many of the stolen items were authentic."

?Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm
that all of this material is genuine.?

There was 160 MB of data stolen. Obviously, it would take some time to
confirm if it was authentic. Obviously, someone who was willing to break
the law (hacking), and post private information publicly, *might* not be
above changing the data, if they have an agenda.

Do you realize how simple it is to compare 160 MB worth of data? That is
not even two hours of work. The "University" could verify it but they
won't.

You don't think they have an agenda, do you?

Everybody has an agenda. The sooner you understand this the sooner you
will cast a suspicious eye at both sides of an issue.

This is priceless!

If you weren't a skeptic before you should be now.

Why? Where's the smoking gun? The blue dress? Private emails are
easily taken out of context, and even with that caveat, I haven't seen
anything in those emails that debunks the science.

Debunks the science? How about the Antic Hole. How about the evidence to
the contrary. How about debating your detractors in public. If you are
so damn cocksure of your data and your "science" then it should stand up
the the scrutiny of the sunshine. Put the data into the public domain,
put the "models" into the public domain.

Surely the scene supporting global warming will stand on its own. Unless
the legs upon which it has to stand are balsa wood tooth picks.

BTW, I've been banned from Mikey Mann's Blog.