[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> Now tell me, who does the above description resemble more: AGW believers or 
> AGW skeptics?
> 

Aren't AGW skeptcis
like little boys
who are aboout to
lose "there" toys?

Do we have a choice??

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[Vaj]

On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:33 PM, BillyG wrote:

> Click on "BJ Blues-Studio", upper right. http://www.woodiealan.com/


Cheesoid China blues? Don't you realize Industrialisation is just disease we 
pass on to the latest slaves? India, China, wherever we can?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[BillyG]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Nov 24, 2009, at 8:58 PM, BillyG wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:36 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Sure, just after you clean up the oceans, air, water supplies, and 
> > > > soils that are going to poison you or your children.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > http://www.box.net/shared/z8lm281slf
> > 
> > Great song, it's got a good hook, melodic and soulful, I really enjoyed it, 
> > and there is some truth to it. No one is denying we need and desire clean 
> > energyit's the manner and means of the solutions that are in dispute, 
> > IMO. Nice post Vaj!
> 
> 
> What you and Shemp are missing, not being natural scientists yourselves, is 
> that when the current low sun output phase ends, the growing situation here 
> on planet earth will continue--not just where it left off, but with increased 
> tenacity--the atmospheric conditions having continued to increase and the 
> sun's output having continued it's previous status.
> 
> Woe to the Lone Rhinoceros and all the other susceptible sentient lifeforms. 
> What a legacy we're leaving behind.

Click on "BJ Blues-Studio", upper right.   http://www.woodiealan.com/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[Vaj]

On Nov 24, 2009, at 8:58 PM, BillyG wrote:

> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:36 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> > 
> > > Sure, just after you clean up the oceans, air, water supplies, and soils 
> > > that are going to poison you or your children.
> > 
> > 
> > http://www.box.net/shared/z8lm281slf
> 
> Great song, it's got a good hook, melodic and soulful, I really enjoyed it, 
> and there is some truth to it. No one is denying we need and desire clean 
> energyit's the manner and means of the solutions that are in dispute, 
> IMO. Nice post Vaj!


What you and Shemp are missing, not being natural scientists yourselves, is 
that when the current low sun output phase ends, the growing situation here on 
planet earth will continue--not just where it left off, but with increased 
tenacity--the atmospheric conditions having continued to increase and the sun's 
output having continued it's previous status.

Woe to the Lone Rhinoceros and all the other susceptible sentient lifeforms. 
What a legacy we're leaving behind.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[BillyG]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:36 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> 
> > Sure,  just after you clean up the oceans, air, water supplies, and soils 
> > that are going to poison you or your children.
> 
> 
> http://www.box.net/shared/z8lm281slf

Great song, it's got a good hook, melodic and soulful, I really enjoyed it, and 
there is some truth to it. No one is denying we need and desire clean 
energyit's the manner and means of the solutions that are in dispute, IMO. 
Nice post Vaj!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[Vaj]

On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:36 PM, off_world_beings wrote:

> Sure,  just after you clean up the oceans, air, water supplies, and soils 
> that are going to poison you or your children.


http://www.box.net/shared/z8lm281slf

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[off_world_beings]

Lol, this is only being reported by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News which is
where this article Shemp posted came from.
Everyone knows that Fox News is more like The Onion, than real news.

Good luck with your crusade naysayers. You and your children will be
breathing toxic air and drinking poisoned water before you can say "I
told you so"

OffWorld


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "ShempMcGurk" 
wrote:
>
> Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global
> Warming'?
> By James Delingpole
>  >  Politics
>  >  Last updated:
> November 20th, 2009
>
> 496 Comments <#comments>  Comment on this article <#postComment>
>
> If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
> dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global
Warming
> myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite
> deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the
> University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796\
\
>
/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html//>
> (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto
> the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That
>

> s-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#more-12937> )
>
> When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72
> documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might
> have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt
>

> nts/hadley_hacked/>  puts it, this scandal could well be "the
> greatest in modern science". These alleged emails – supposedly
> exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory
> – suggest:
>
> Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal
> destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to
> disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their
> public claims and much more.
>
> One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of
> John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the
> Still Waiting For Greenhouse  >  site),
> commenting:
>
> "In an odd way this is cheering news."
>
> But perhaps the most damaging revelations  – the scientific
> equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal – are
> those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have
> manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
>
> Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged
> emails because – though Hadley CRU's director Phil Jones has
> confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room
>

> s-leaked-data-is-real.html>  – he has yet to fess up to any
specific
> contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:
>
> Manipulation of evidence:
>
> I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real
> temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd
> from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
>
> Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
>
> The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the
> moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published
> in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even
more
> warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
> inadequate.
>
> Suppression of evidence:
>
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
>
> Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family
> crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his
> new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
>
> Next
> time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to
> beat
> the crap out of him. Very tempted.
>
> Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm
Period
> (MWP):
>
> ……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen
NH
> records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly
> 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather
than
> the usual 1K, addresses

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "ShempMcGurk" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "BillyG"  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "PaliGap"  wrote:
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > "But do these revelations justify the sceptics'
> > > > claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin"
> > > > of global warming theory?(8,9)
> > > >
> > > > Not at all.
> > > >
> > > > They damage the credibility of three or four
> > > > scientists. They raise questions about the integrity
> > > > of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of
> > > > evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider
> > > > conspiracy would have to be revealed."
> > > >
> > > > ~~ George Monbiot
> >
> > > Well, yes - except that the "three or four" are very much
> > > key players in what is actually a surprisingly small
> > > field.
> >
> > Indeed, the sanctum sanctorum of the international global warming
cabal, now in jeopardy of loosing their reputations, grants and power!
> >
>
>
> AT THE VERY LEAST what must now happen is that AGW skeptics must get a
chair at the table.>>

Sure,  just after you clean up the oceans, air, water supplies, and
soils that are going to poison you or your children.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" do.rflex@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > You two fellows are either trolling for entertainment or blind
ideologues in denial.
> >
> > Either way, it's a waste of time to bother with you. People like you
and flat-earthers are in the same category.
>
>
>
>
> The original flat-Earthers ...



I'm referring to these goofballs:

The Flat Earth Society (also known as the International Flat Earth
Society or the International Flat Earth Research Society) was an
organization that sought to further the belief that the Earth is flat
  rather than a sphere. The
modern organization was founded by Englishman Samuel Shenton
  in 1956,[1]
  and later
led by Charles K. Johnson
 , who based the
organization in his home in Lancaster
 , California  . The formal
society appears to have disbanded after Johnson's death in 2001,
while its name continues to be used by various web sites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

[snip]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> You two fellows are either trolling for entertainment or blind ideologues in 
> denial. 
> 
> Either way, it's a waste of time to bother with you. People like you and 
> flat-earthers are in the same category.




The original flat-Earthers were people who blindly believed their priests who 
told them, contrary to all evidence, that the world was flat.  That the world 
was flat was believed by the Church from its beginnings and it became part and 
parcel of church doctrine.

Skeptics were burned at the stake.

There was no room for argument.  Those that did argue were shunned, thrown out 
of the church, and considered religiously-incorrect.

Indeed, flat-earthers held that "the debate is over" and did not entertain 
anything that allowed even the slightest doubt in.

Now tell me, who does the above description resemble more: AGW believers or AGW 
skeptics?






> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Bananas.
> > > 
> > > The IPCC represents an overwhelming global consensus body of science
> > > based on the research of thousands of scientists from around the world.
> > > 
> > > From their website:
> > > 
> > > "Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work
> > > of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the
> > > IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current
> > > information."
> > 
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > But science is neither a democracy nor a consensus.
> > 
> > A million "scientists" can agree on something.  If the facts are contrary 
> > to what they say, the consensus ain't worth a hill of beans.
> > 
> > Indeed, the consensus can be "overwhelming" as we are told ad infinitum.  
> > But agreeing on something doesn't make it "fact"; agreeing happens in 
> > committees and in parliaments (hopefully).  It is NOT in the realm of 
> > science which is a dictatorship of provable, repeatable facts.
> > 
> > Scientific "fact" is when you postulate something and it can be repeatable 
> > and predictable, neither of which has or is happening with the religion of 
> > global warming.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[do.rflex]

You two fellows are either trolling for entertainment or blind ideologues in 
denial. 

Either way, it's a waste of time to bother with you. People like you and 
flat-earthers are in the same category.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Bananas.
> > 
> > The IPCC represents an overwhelming global consensus body of science
> > based on the research of thousands of scientists from around the world.
> > 
> > From their website:
> > 
> > "Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work
> > of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the
> > IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current
> > information."
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> 
> But science is neither a democracy nor a consensus.
> 
> A million "scientists" can agree on something.  If the facts are contrary to 
> what they say, the consensus ain't worth a hill of beans.
> 
> Indeed, the consensus can be "overwhelming" as we are told ad infinitum.  But 
> agreeing on something doesn't make it "fact"; agreeing happens in committees 
> and in parliaments (hopefully).  It is NOT in the realm of science which is a 
> dictatorship of provable, repeatable facts.
> 
> Scientific "fact" is when you postulate something and it can be repeatable 
> and predictable, neither of which has or is happening with the religion of 
> global warming.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
 
> [snip]
 
> > 
> > Bananas.
> > 
> > The IPCC represents an overwhelming global consensus body of science
> > based on the research of thousands of scientists from around the world.
> > 
> > From their website:
> > 
> > "Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work
> > of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the
> > IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current
> > information."
> 
> [snip]
> 
> But science is neither a democracy nor a consensus.
> 
> A million "scientists" can agree on something.  If the facts are contrary to 
> what they say, the consensus ain't worth a hill of beans.
> 
> Indeed, the consensus can be "overwhelming" as we are told ad infinitum.  But 
> agreeing on something doesn't make it "fact"; agreeing happens in committees 
> and in parliaments (hopefully).  It is NOT in the realm of science which is a 
> dictatorship of provable, repeatable facts.
> 
> Scientific "fact" is when you postulate something and it can be repeatable 
> and predictable, neither of which has or is happening with the religion of 
> global warming.
>

And in any case, perhaps we should reserve some 
scepticism for these claims of 000's of scientists
all marching in step at the IPCC?

"The evidence shows that the claim of "4000 scientific 
experts supported the IPCC's claims" is dishonest in
almost every word. There were not 4000 people, but 
just under 2900; they were not all scientists; and it 
seems that they were not all experts. There is only 
evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the 
claim, although that might not mean much given the 
vested interests and lack of impartiality of many 
authors and reviewers. As mentioned at the start of 
this document the "support" can only be said to apply 
to the document as a whole and is by virtue of the 
input of authors and reviewers"

http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:



[snip]



> 
> Bananas.
> 
> The IPCC represents an overwhelming global consensus body of science
> based on the research of thousands of scientists from around the world.
> 
> From their website:
> 
> "Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work
> of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the
> IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current
> information."


[snip]



But science is neither a democracy nor a consensus.

A million "scientists" can agree on something.  If the facts are contrary to 
what they say, the consensus ain't worth a hill of beans.

Indeed, the consensus can be "overwhelming" as we are told ad infinitum.  But 
agreeing on something doesn't make it "fact"; agreeing happens in committees 
and in parliaments (hopefully).  It is NOT in the realm of science which is a 
dictatorship of provable, repeatable facts.

Scientific "fact" is when you postulate something and it can be repeatable and 
predictable, neither of which has or is happening with the religion of global 
warming.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" do.rflex@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > "But do these revelations justify the sceptics'
> > claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin"
> > of global warming theory?(8,9)
> >
> > Not at all.
> >
> > They damage the credibility of three or four
> > scientists. They raise questions about the integrity
> > of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of
> > evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider
> > conspiracy would have to be revealed."
> >
> > ~~ George Monbiot
> > http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
> > 
>
>
> Well, yes - except that the "three or four" are very much
> key players in what is actually a surprisingly small
> field.
>


Bananas.

The IPCC represents an overwhelming global consensus body of science
based on the research of thousands of scientists from around the world.

>From their website:

"Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work
of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the
IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current
information."

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm


"The mainactivity of the IPCC is
to provide at regularintervals
AssessmentReports
  of the state of knowledge on
climate change. The latest one is "Climate
Change 2007", the IPCC Fourth Assessment
Report.

The IPCC produces alsoSpecial
Reports
 ; MethodologyReports
 ; TechnicalPapers
 ; and Supporting   
Material
 , often in response to requests
from the Conference of the Parties to the
UNFCCC, or from other environmental Conventions.

The preparation of allIPCC
reports and publications follows strict
procedures

agreed by the Panel. The work is guided
by the IPCC Chair and the Working Group
and Task Force Co-chairs.


Hundreds of expertsfrom all over
the world contributeto the
preparation of IPCC reports as authors,
contributors and reviewers. The composition
of author teams reflect a range of
views, expertise and geographical representation.
Review by governments and experts is an essential
element of the preparation of IPCC reports."
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[BillyG]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
> >  
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > "But do these revelations justify the sceptics'
> > > > claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin"
> > > > of global warming theory?(8,9)
> > > > 
> > > > Not at all.
> > > > 
> > > > They damage the credibility of three or four
> > > > scientists. They raise questions about the integrity
> > > > of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of
> > > > evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider
> > > > conspiracy would have to be revealed."
> > > > 
> > > > ~~ George Monbiot
> > 
> > > Well, yes - except that the "three or four" are very much
> > > key players in what is actually a surprisingly small
> > > field. 
> > 
> > Indeed, the sanctum sanctorum of the international global warming cabal, 
> > now in jeopardy of loosing their reputations, grants and power!
> >
> 
> 
> AT THE VERY LEAST what must now happen is that AGW skeptics must get a chair 
> at the table.  No more censoring.  No more science-fascism.
> 
> BOTH sides of the debate are now going to be heard.
> 
> And the third side as well, which is catching on: that more CO2 in the 
> atmosphere is a GOOD thing.

Right on Shemp, at a minimum it must be opened to both pro AND con, in spite of 
Pope's comment, the debate is over!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
>  
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > "But do these revelations justify the sceptics'
> > > claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin"
> > > of global warming theory?(8,9)
> > > 
> > > Not at all.
> > > 
> > > They damage the credibility of three or four
> > > scientists. They raise questions about the integrity
> > > of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of
> > > evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider
> > > conspiracy would have to be revealed."
> > > 
> > > ~~ George Monbiot
> 
> > Well, yes - except that the "three or four" are very much
> > key players in what is actually a surprisingly small
> > field. 
> 
> Indeed, the sanctum sanctorum of the international global warming cabal, now 
> in jeopardy of loosing their reputations, grants and power!
>


AT THE VERY LEAST what must now happen is that AGW skeptics must get a chair at 
the table.  No more censoring.  No more science-fascism.

BOTH sides of the debate are now going to be heard.

And the third side as well, which is catching on: that more CO2 in the 
atmosphere is a GOOD thing.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[BillyG]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:

> > 
> > "But do these revelations justify the sceptics'
> > claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin"
> > of global warming theory?(8,9)
> > 
> > Not at all.
> > 
> > They damage the credibility of three or four
> > scientists. They raise questions about the integrity
> > of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of
> > evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider
> > conspiracy would have to be revealed."
> > 
> > ~~ George Monbiot

> Well, yes - except that the "three or four" are very much
> key players in what is actually a surprisingly small
> field. 

Indeed, the sanctum sanctorum of the international global warming cabal, now in 
jeopardy of loosing their reputations, grants and power!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> "But do these revelations justify the sceptics'
> claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin"
> of global warming theory?(8,9)
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> They damage the credibility of three or four
> scientists. They raise questions about the integrity
> of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of
> evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider
> conspiracy would have to be revealed."
> 
> ~~ George Monbiot
> http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
> 


Well, yes - except that the "three or four" are very much
key players in what is actually a surprisingly small
field. 

> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global
> > Warming'?
> > By James Delingpole
> >   Politics
> >   Last updated:
> > November 20th, 2009
> >
> > 496 Comments <#comments>  Comment on this article <#postComment>
> >
> > If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
> > dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global
> Warming
> > myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite
> > deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the
> > University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796\
> \
> >
> /Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html//>
> > (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto
> > the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That
> >
>  \
> > s-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#more-12937> )
> >
> > When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72
> > documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might
> > have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt
> >
>  \
> > nts/hadley_hacked/>  puts it, this scandal could well be "the
> > greatest in modern science". These alleged emails – supposedly
> > exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory
> > – suggest:
> >
> > Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal
> > destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to
> > disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their
> > public claims and much more.
> >
> > One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of
> > John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the
> > Still Waiting For Greenhouse   site),
> > commenting:
> >
> > "In an odd way this is cheering news."
> >
> > But perhaps the most damaging revelations  – the scientific
> > equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal – are
> > those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have
> > manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
> >
> > Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged
> > emails because – though Hadley CRU's director Phil Jones has
> > confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room
> >
>  \
> > s-leaked-data-is-real.html>  – he has yet to fess up to any
> specific
> > contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:
> >
> > Manipulation of evidence:
> >
> > I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real
> > temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd
> > from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
> >
> > Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
> >
> > The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the
> > moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published
> > in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even
> more
> > warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
> > inadequate.
> >
> > Suppression of evidence:
> >
> > Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> >
> > Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family
> > crisis.
> >
> > Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his
> > new email address.
> >
> > We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
> >
> > Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
> >
> > Next
> > time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to
> > beat
> > the crap out of him. Very tempted.
> >
> > Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm
> Period
> > (MWP):
> >
> > ……Phil and I have recently

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[WillyTex]

> > Not at all.
> >
BillyG wrote:
> I think YOU could have arrived at that 
> conclusion Mr Do, why not give it a try!  
> Maybe you're smarter than we thinknyuk!
>
It damages Mr. Do's reputation far more
because he didn't post anything about the
hacked emails. Maybe he was hoping we 
wouldn't hear about them...nyuk!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[BillyG]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> "But do these revelations justify the sceptics'
> claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin"
> of global warming theory?(8,9)
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> They damage the credibility of three or four
> scientists. They raise questions about the integrity
> of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of
> evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider
> conspiracy would have to be revealed."
> 
> ~~ George Monbiot

I think YOU could have arrived at that conclusion Mr Do, why not give it a try! 
 Maybe you're smarter than we thinknyuk!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

[do.rflex]

"But do these revelations justify the sceptics'
claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin"
of global warming theory?(8,9)

Not at all.

They damage the credibility of three or four
scientists. They raise questions about the integrity
of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of
evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider
conspiracy would have to be revealed."

~~ George Monbiot
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/







--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
wrote:
>
> Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global
> Warming'?
> By James Delingpole
>   Politics
>   Last updated:
> November 20th, 2009
>
> 496 Comments <#comments>  Comment on this article <#postComment>
>
> If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
> dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global
Warming
> myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite
> deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the
> University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796\
\
>
/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html//>
> (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto
> the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That
>
 s-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#more-12937> )
>
> When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72
> documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might
> have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt
>
 nts/hadley_hacked/>  puts it, this scandal could well be "the
> greatest in modern science". These alleged emails – supposedly
> exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory
> – suggest:
>
> Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal
> destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to
> disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their
> public claims and much more.
>
> One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of
> John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the
> Still Waiting For Greenhouse   site),
> commenting:
>
> "In an odd way this is cheering news."
>
> But perhaps the most damaging revelations  – the scientific
> equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal – are
> those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have
> manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
>
> Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged
> emails because – though Hadley CRU's director Phil Jones has
> confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room
>
 s-leaked-data-is-real.html>  – he has yet to fess up to any
specific
> contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:
>
> Manipulation of evidence:
>
> I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real
> temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd
> from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
>
> Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
>
> The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the
> moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published
> in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even
more
> warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
> inadequate.
>
> Suppression of evidence:
>
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
>
> Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family
> crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his
> new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
>
> Next
> time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to
> beat
> the crap out of him. Very tempted.
>
> Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm
Period
> (MWP):
>
> ……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen
NH
> records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly
> 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather
than
> the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard
to
> the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative
> "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean
> reconstruction available that far back….
>
>