Rick asks: What do governments have to gain from this? (for some reason Rick's responses are not copying onto my response)
Do you really have to ask? Governments want to control our lives. That is the nature of the beast. The more they can control carbon -- which touches every aspect of life in the economy -- the more they control you. And as for the 97%: sigh, do we really have to deal with that again? I don't care if it's 100%, it's flawed bullshit. And everyone knows it. Carbon dioxide is GOOD for human life, not bad. We want MORE in the atmosphere, not less. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/02/co2-emissions-good-mankind-c02-famine.php --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <r...@...> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of ShempMcGurk > Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 5:39 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The jig is up! Phil Jones confesses! > > > You really do want 10s of millions of people to die from this global warming > thing, don't you, Rick? > They will die if nothing is done. > > Why are you so attached to such tenuous science? > I am not a scientist, and neither are you, but unless the 97% of > climatologists who support AGW are corrupt, the science is not tenuous. > Isn't it a hint to you that governments are behind the funding of all the > research that shows there to be global warming? > Governments fund most cancer research too. Is that also suspect? What do > governments have to gain from this? > And questionable politicians such as Al Gore? > I don't find him questionable. Good guy IMO. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > Quite the opposite: > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leaked-e > > mails-uea > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> ] > > On Behalf Of ShempMcGurk > > Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 5:04 PM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] The jig is up! Phil Jones confesses! > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/ygwbn7v > > > > Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no > > global warming since 1995 > > > > By > > <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y > <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Jonathan+Petre> > &authornamef=Jonathan+Petre> > > Jonathan Petre > > Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010 > > > > * Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing > > * There has been no global warming since 1995 > > * Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made > > changes > > Professor Phil Jones > > > <http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/13/article-1250872-0845A9BA000005DC- > > 871_233x377.jpg> > > Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as > it > > should be' > > The academic at the centre of the `Climategate' affair, whose raw data is > > crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble > > `keeping track' of the information. > > Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of > > Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant > papers. > > Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations > > of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was > > swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is `not as good as > > it should be'. > > The data is crucial to the famous `hockey stick graph' used by climate > > change advocates to support the theory. > > Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in > > medieval times than now - suggesting global warming may not be a man-made > > phenomenon. > > And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no `statistically > > significant' warming. > > The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there > > are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the > > orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made. > > Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as > director > > of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit after the > leaking > > of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data. > > The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world > > and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by > the > > United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press > > governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions. > > > > > > More... > > > > * > > > <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250813/The-professor-s-amazing-c > > limate-change-retreat.html> MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The professor's > amazing > > climate change retreat > > Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of > > `scientific fraud' for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and > > refusing to share vital data with critics. > > Discussing the interview, the BBC's environmental analyst Roger Harrabin > > said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that > > his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and > > office tidying. > > Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC's website, said the > > professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from > around > > the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change. > > That material has been used to produce the `hockey stick graph' which is > > relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades. > > According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said `his office > is > > piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of > > pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw > data > > to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never > > realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them'. > > Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack > > of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share > > data with critics, which he regretted. > > > > > <http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/13/article-1250872-0847D53D000005DC- > > 535_468x295_popup.jpg> Enlarge Chart > > > > But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the > > scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises > were > > predominantly man-made. > > Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: `There is > > some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have > > come from but it's probably not as good as it should be. > > `There's a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything > is > > difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then > issue > > improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have > to > > improve more.' > > He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar > > warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be > > explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not. > > He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no > > `statistically significant' warming, although he argued this was a blip > > rather than the long-term trend. > > And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even > > warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high > > temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled. > > Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer > between > > about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in > > northern countries. > > But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying > > to the northern part of the world. > > Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: `There is much > > debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. > > The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North > > Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. > > `For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in > > more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There > > are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions. > > `Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or > > warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not > be > > unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm > > than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.' > > Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the > > IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period > could > > have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than > > now. > > Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data > > with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly > > available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled > `until > > recently - and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend'. > > Mr Harrabin told Radio 4's Today programme that, despite the > controversies, > > there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific > > view that climate change was largely man-made. > > But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy > > Foundation, said Professor Jones's `excuses' for his failure to share data > > were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and `mates'. > > He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it > to > > see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates. > > He added that the professor's concessions over medieval warming were > > `significant' because they were his first public admission that the > science > > was not settled. > > > > > > Read more: > > > <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonish > > > ment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?IT > > O=1490#ixzz0fYQdHR1C> > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishm > > > ent-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO > > =1490#ixzz0fYQdHR1C > > >
