On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
> >
> > Dude, I have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> I know, but I have patience.
>
> > You can get temperatures for 100s of years from 100s of sources and
> > "global warming" wasn't even
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> Dude, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I know, but I have patience.
> You can get temperatures for 100s of years from 100s of sources and
> "global warming" wasn't even a discussion until at least the 70s.
>
> So it sounds like your
> Sam wrote:
>
> Point is moot since the EPA did a run-around congress and is going to
> classify exhaling as toxic waste. Talk about CHANGE baby.
>
Dude, I have no idea what you're talking about.
You can get temperatures for 100s of years from 100s of sources and
"global warming" wasn't even a
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wigley_denies_i_did_not_choke_on_the_deceit/
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
>> Sam wrote:
>>
>> This guys thinks they are:
>>
>
> This isn't a game of Where's-the-moron, but you do a good job at th
controversial question, the answer to which may
depend on where and when the forests are growing."
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 3:01 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: climate raw data destroyed
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:07
Point is moot since the EPA did a run-around congress and is going to
classify exhaling as toxic waste. Talk about CHANGE baby.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
>> Mo wrote:
>> I am so tired of the spin and mis-information, on all these topics,
>> from all sides.
>>
>
> Here
Ah, so anyone that doubts hide-the-decline was a totally legitimate
scientific procedure is a moron?
Let me put this in a way that even you could understand :)
If the people we trust taking the temperature are caught lying about
the temperatures it's time to ask serious questions. It is not time
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Scott Stewart
> wrote:
> > Note: there are no known non plant species that breathe C02 and produce
> > oxygen as a by-product.
>
> Except: Your Mom
>
Checkmate!
--
You can get killed just for living in
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Scott Stewart wrote:
>
> NatGeo made some good points the other night...
>
> Is the planet warming: yes
Based on the raw data or the fudged data?
> Is it generally cyclical: yes
> Is the planet warming faster than in previous cycles, their data says yes
> Their
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Scott Stewart
wrote:
> Note: there are no known non plant species that breathe C02 and produce
> oxygen as a by-product.
Except: Your Mom
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something
> Sam wrote:
>
> This guys thinks they are:
>
This isn't a game of Where's-the-moron, but you do a good job at that.
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on the House of Fusion maili
> Mo wrote:
> I am so tired of the spin and mis-information, on all these topics,
> from all sides.
>
Here's what I don't get:
We've got pretty solid temperature data for the last 200 years. Over
2 centuries worth and across 3 centuries.
If you look at it there's no doubt we're in a decade-ove
lost over 600,000 square
kilometers of forest since 1970...
Note: there are no known non plant species that breathe C02 and produce
oxygen as a by-product.
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 12:33 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: c
This guys thinks they are:
The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Gruss Gott wrote:
> So you think temperature readings - recorded history from a zillion
> sources - since 1880 are suspect?
>
~~
Nope that's just infrastructure costs. Nothing about new taxes or
closed businesses and lost jobs, new light bulbs, new AC's and
heaters, appliances...
I agree that $10 trillion is nothing, we can just ask Barry to write
another check, my grand-kids will be good for it.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11
Vague is right. Worldwide spending over the "next few decades" for
all climate related items? But of course worded in your message as if
the US was going to spend trillions in the next 15 minutes.
I am so tired of the spin and mis-information, on all these topics,
from all sides.
On Tue, Dec 8
> RoMunn wrote:
> We could do everything wrong and 100 years from now the planet could be an
> iceberg, or we could do everything right and 100 years from now the planet
> could be a hot-house. Or it could be the other way around. We have no way of
> knowing, and more importantly no way of control
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Who is the "we" in your statements? Exactly who is proposing to spend
> "trillions of dollars"? I haven't seen any legislation or regulations
> that would result in that kind of expenditure. Nor have I seen any
> claims to the results you are
Who is the "we" in your statements? Exactly who is proposing to spend
"trillions of dollars"? I haven't seen any legislation or regulations
that would result in that kind of expenditure. Nor have I seen any
claims to the results you are stating.
You have links?
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:57 PM,
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Gruss G wrote:
>
> Now you might be right: this trend may indeed prove to be "common
> cause" variation. But keep in mind we've got double the time period
> confirmation of special cause. That's pretty strong, but certainly
> not proof.
>
>
We could do everythin
> RoMunn wrote:
> Ah, but that's exactly the point. All of a sudden we go from "knowing" the
> temperature record for thousands of years to "knowing" the temperature
> record for roughly 130 years
The point I'm making (and the one you're avoiding) is this:
(1.) We're pretty sure of the weather f
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Gruss G wrote:
>
>
>
> So you think temperature readings - recorded history from a zillion
> sources - since 1880 are suspect?
>
>
Ah, but that's exactly the point. All of a sudden we go from "knowing" the
temperature record for thousands of years to "knowing" the
> RoMunn wrote:
>> Climate change could be caused by
>> aliens hiding on the dark side of the moon. It could be caused by all the
>> hot air spewed by Al Gore about global warming. Without data, could means
>> nothing and it looks like the data is pretty suspect at the moment.
>>
>
> Indeed.
>
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:34 PM, denstar wrote:
>>
>> "Who knows?" may be valid, to some extent, but come on. Use a smidgen
>> of logic and ask yourself "it is plausible and possible that we're
>> affecting the environment?" (Environment includes cli
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:34 PM, denstar wrote:
>
> "Who knows?" may be valid, to some extent, but come on. Use a smidgen
> of logic and ask yourself "it is plausible and possible that we're
> affecting the environment?" (Environment includes climate)
Reverse the question and re-ask it. Get bac
I said "toxins" but I really meant everything-- cutting down tons of
trees, strip mining, altering the course of rivers without realizing
just what we're doing, etc..
--
The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man
understands what will sell.
Confucius
~~
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "So you honestly believe that we humans have no impact on our environment?"
>
> Environment and climate are different. Humans certainly have an effect on
> environment (Chernobyl anyone?). Climate? Who knows? AGW is not
> established fact
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Jerry B wrote:.
>
> One of the most irritating things about people in the cult of man-mad
> global
> warming is that people who don't believe in man-made global warming also
> don't believe in being environmentally responsible. The two things are not
> mutually ex
"So you honestly believe that we humans have no impact on our environment?"
Environment and climate are different. Humans certainly have an effect on
environment (Chernobyl anyone?). Climate? Who knows? AGW is not
established fact, no matter what you hear on TV.
One of the most irritating th
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
>> Climate change could be caused by
>> aliens hiding on the dark side of the moon. It could be caused by all the
>> hot air spewed by Al Gore about global warming. Without data, could m
So you don't know and accordingly it sounds as if you're just bullsh*tting.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
>>
>> So, just newspaper articles. Still no data.
>>
>>
> now you are just being difficult. if you'd like to di
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
> Climate change could be caused by
> aliens hiding on the dark side of the moon. It could be caused by all the
> hot air spewed by Al Gore about global warming. Without data, could means
> nothing and it looks like the data is pretty suspec
"Common sense tells me that climate change that occurred when no humans
inhabited the earth, could not possibly be caused by humans. But climate
change that occurs while humans do inhabit the earth, could be because by
our activities...and that the two are not necessarily linked, and certainly
one
I can't believe you had to explain that :)
Are you talking about all graphs or just the ones you don't agree with?
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> It's a math insult: "You drew the curves, then plotted the points".
> In other words, you made the data fit the assumption. U
Maps from the same data you seem to be defending.
You've pretty much said you don't trust any data points so why do you
ask for them.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> No, you gave some links to a bunch of unsubstantiated graphs on some
> websites. That's not data, it's spin.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> So, just newspaper articles. Still no data.
>
>
now you are just being difficult. if you'd like to dig through the
climateaudit site and find the links to the data, feel free.
~
It's a math insult: "You drew the curves, then plotted the points".
In other words, you made the data fit the assumption. Unfortunately,
the practice has escaped from the math world and become ubiquitous,
especially in media and internet discussions.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Larry C. Ly
No, you gave some links to a bunch of unsubstantiated graphs on some
websites. That's not data, it's spin.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> I gave you data
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Maureen wrote:
>>
>> So, just newspaper articles. Still no data
~~~
funny I've always done it the other way, fit the curve to the data.
In other words the data ought to drive your theories.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> I have no doubt that the data was presented to best make the argument.
> I just don't think they are the only ones doing
I gave you data
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> So, just newspaper articles. Still no data.
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on the House of Fusion mailing
Yeah, one of my problems with the "skeptics" is that it's *very* hard
to find objective ones.
The exchanges between Plimer and Monbiot are sorta enlightening.
--
Success depends upon previous preparation, and without such
preparation there is sure to be failure.
Confucius
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 a
I have no doubt that the data was presented to best make the argument.
I just don't think they are the only ones doing it. Universally in
this debate, researchers on both sides tend to draw the curve, then
plot the points.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> that said all
If you (or he) can't provide the DATA behind his "fact", then it is
just his opinion.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>>
> He stated a fact, which is that global temperate data has been flat for the
> last dozen years or so.
~~~
So, just newspaper articles. Still no data.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Robert Munn wrote:
> Witness the first paragraph of Richard 's (MIT Prof) WSJ editorial:
>
> "Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider
> that the measurement used, the globally avera
Its still an opinion piece. What scientific journal was that fact
taken from. Was it presented at a conference or was it in something
like the PLOS?
Otherwise its still blather.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
>>
>>
I wouldn't comment until I know more about the process in those
particular journals. That said given how much of those stolen emails
have been quote mined for the juicy bits taken out of context, I still
trust the peer review process far more than what the climate change
deniers would have in plac
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> A WSJ opinion piece is not data either, its more blather.
>
>
He stated a fact, which is that global temperate data has been flat for the
last dozen years or so.
~|
Wan
Larry,
I'm dying to hear your thoughts on the peer review process taking
place with this group of highly respected scientists.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> A WSJ opinion piece is not data either, its more blather.
>
~~~
A WSJ opinion piece is not data either, its more blather.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Maureen wrote:
>
>>
>> The planet being really hot and really cold in the past is not the
>> statement for which I asked for data. The statement y
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Maureen wrote:
>
> The planet being really hot and really cold in the past is not the
> statement for which I asked for data. The statement you made was that
> the planet is cooling now. Where's the data for that? And quotes
> from unknown scientists with no c
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
>>
>> Could you provide a link to the data that indicates that the planet is
>> cooling, and the credentials of those gathering and presenting said
>> data?
>>
>
> Here is just one example, bu
Robert Munn wrote:
> at the end of the day it all comes down to how much energy we get from the
> Sun.
Minus how much is reflected back into space through the atmosphere.
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with somethin
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:33 AM, G Money wrote:
>
> And your common sense tells you that we can have ZERO impact on how much
> energy we get from the Sun, or what happens to it after it gets here?
>
> Really?
>
>
No, common sense tells me that humans, in our arrogance, always attribute
far too mu
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> No. Common sense tells me that the Sun is what heats our planet and makes
> it
> possible to live here. Volcanic activity has some short term influence (in
> geological terms) as does sea activity, and specific events like large
> meteor st
One thing I can summarize out of his blog that is fairly useful is the "hide
the decline" issue. They threw out tree ring data after 1960 because it
disagreed with temperature measurement data from post 1960. The problem with
the tree ring data is that the rings may be thicker or thinner for more
I think this is the graph she's looking for:
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> Steve McInTyre is the guy to read for the science:
>
> http://camirror.wordpress.com/ (the mirror for high volume)
>
> and
>
> http://www.climatea
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:53 AM, G Money wrote:
>
> Common sense tells me that climate change that occurred when no humans
> inhabited the earth, could not possibly be caused by humans. But climate
> change that occurs while humans do inhabit the earth, could be because by
> our activities...and t
I think that Plimer has some good points. His book was a good read.
But I am amazed and humored by Plimer calling out the scientific community
for slanting their science in order to keep the paychecks coming.
He doesn't seem to hold himself to the same scrutiny.
>From wikipedia:
Plimer is a dir
No the issue was she wanted to see the much vaunted raw data, not some blog.
So where is it?
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> Steve McInTyre is the guy to read for the science:
>
> http://camirror.wordpress.com/ (the mirror for high volume)
>
> and
>
> http://www.climatea
Steve McInTyre is the guy to read for the science:
http://camirror.wordpress.com/ (the mirror for high volume)
and
http://www.climateaudit.org/ (his site)
There is a ton of information, comments, and links to many other sites.
There are specific discussions of what "hide the decline" means and
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> This morning when I woke up the Sun came up and the temperate rose by ten
> degrees within a couple of hours. Does anyone think that the Sun isn't
> going
> to come up tomorrow? Use just a little tiny bit of common sense.
>
>
Common sense t
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Ian Sk wrote:
>
>
> How does this show that it is *NOT* getting warmer now?!?
>
>
If you want to hear it from the horse's mouth, go to the source - the leaked
emails where the scientists express dismay that the planet has been cooling
for nine years, contrary to th
how about the data, not opinions?
I believe reading Mo's request, that's what she asked for, not blathering.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
>>
>> Could you provide a link to the data that indicates that the planet is
>>
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:27 AM, G Money wrote:
>
>
> Then in 6th grade they teach you that just because it happened this way in
> the past, doesn't mean it will necessarily be the case in the present or
> future.
>
> Why does the fact that the Earth's climate cycled before humans matter one
> iot
Robert Munn wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
>
>> Could you provide a link to the data that indicates that the planet is
>> cooling, and the credentials of those gathering and presenting said
>> data?
>>
> Here is just one example, but it's irrelevant, all you nee
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> Here is just one example, but it's irrelevant, all you need is a 5th grade
> education to understand that the planet has been really hot and really cold
> in the distant past and it had nothing to do with human activity.
>
Then in 6th grad
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > The fancy climate models
>
> I was just talking about temperature readings - do you consider them
> "fancy"? - for the last 130 years:
>
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
>
You may wish to ignore the massive sca
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Could you provide a link to the data that indicates that the planet is
> cooling, and the credentials of those gathering and presenting said
> data?
>
Here is just one example, but it's irrelevant, all you need is a 5th grade
education to under
> RoMunn wrote:
> The fancy climate models
I was just talking about temperature readings - do you consider them
"fancy"? - for the last 130 years:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
It's pretty self-explanatory. We're at a decade-over-decade high
point for the last 130 years and this pa
Could you provide a link to the data that indicates that the planet is
cooling, and the credentials of those gathering and presenting said
data?
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
> The fancy climate models said the planet should be warming tremendously
> right now and it isn't,
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Gruss G wrote:
>
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > years of spotty ground data, less than fifty years of satellite data
>
> So you agree with NASA then, right? That since 1880 this past decade
> has been the warmest and if that trend continues for few more decades
> we're f
> RoMunn wrote:
> years of spotty ground data, less than fifty years of satellite data
So you agree with NASA then, right? That since 1880 this past decade
has been the warmest and if that trend continues for few more decades
we're fecked.
Cause that's what NASA's data says.
In other words, if
> Scott wrote:
>
> Waitwasn't it you who said:
> a.) We don't know if there's global warming, and
> b.) We don't know if there isn't global warming.
>
> Now you are saying there is irrefutable proof we have global warming.
The perceived discrepancy is based definitions.
I'm using the term "g
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:12 AM, denstar wrote:
...
> I mean, have you /seen/ the earth from space at night?
I should note, that I have not seen the earth from space (at night, or
otherwise) with my own eyes (so to speak), so it could just be "sexed
up" data.
Maybe I should add that "sexed up" d
Robert Munn wrote:
> The only thing we really know, i.e. can tell from hundreds of millions of
> years of the geological record, is that the climate of the planet changes
> significantly over time, regardless of the existence or activities of human
> beings.
Which, as far as we know with current
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> The only thing we really know, i.e. can tell from hundreds of millions of
> years of the geological record, is that the climate of the planet changes
> significantly over time, regardless of the existence or activities of human
> beings. Beyon
I think he said "that's not true". :)
You can choose to believe, or not.
The only thing that's been consistently proven is that we really don't
know what's going on, period.
That's the nature of reality.
"Sure-ity" comes from inside. Or whatever that Buddha quote is.
"Don't believe because
The only thing we really know, i.e. can tell from hundreds of millions of
years of the geological record, is that the climate of the planet changes
significantly over time, regardless of the existence or activities of human
beings. Beyond that, everything else is speculation based on a few hundred
Waitwasn't it you who said:
a.) We don't know if there's global warming, and
b.) We don't know if there isn't global warming.
Now you are saying there is irrefutable proof we have global warming.
Nice backpedal.
Didi you not say in your lsat post that we do not have data that
proves globa
> Denny wrote:
> Say some person shows up, busting mad miracles. Walking on water, and
> what have you.
>
Yeah, Scott, Denny is on the right track.
You see we've got good statistical data to indicate the irrefutable
existence of an intra-decade global warming special cause trend.
Of course an
I'm curious...
Say some person shows up, busting mad miracles. Walking on water, and
what have you.
First off: would you think "Jesus-type-whatnot!"?
Secondly, to take this thought experiment a step further, let's posit
that the person actually says "God gives me these powers, we're tight,
an
So, using that logic, one could deduce that you believe in God. Well,
maybe not really believe, you just might 'manage the risk'.
a.) We don't know if there is a God, and
b.) We don't know that there is not a God
So, I guess the smart risk management thing to do is to pray and go to
church eve
> Sam wrote:
>
> It's worse than you think, 90 percent of us will die.
>
Remember? I take the risk management position, which is the only
sensible one since:
a.) We don't know if there's global warming, and
b.) We don't know if there isn't global warming.
When you have conflicting and/or in u
It's worse than you think, 90 percent of us will die.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/only-10-will-survive-global-warming
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> No, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand which is global climate
> change that could have a serious impact on you
> Scott wrote:
> So, its OK because everyone does it?
>
No, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand which is global climate
change that could have a serious impact on your quality of life - or
your kid's, if you care about them.
This whole issue - anglia - has nothing to do with that topic. In any
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
> (A.) Duh.
>
> If you take *any* emails from *any* institution you find this same
> level of "deceit". Somebody "sexing up" a graph to prove something or
> other. This falls into the category of "duh" and you should be
> outraged by your own
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> I'm saying you are contradicting yourself.
>
> As for NASA, anything from Hansen I don't trust.
>
> I don't know who this guy is but he has a pretty graph.
> http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/04/nasa-giss-data-stinks.html
I don't know who that gu
I'm saying you are contradicting yourself.
As for NASA, anything from Hansen I don't trust.
I don't know who this guy is but he has a pretty graph.
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/04/nasa-giss-data-stinks.html
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
>> Sam wrote:
>> We know t
> Sam wrote:
> We know the science is fudged. That tells me enough when $trillions
> are at stake.
>
So you're saying NASA is lying?
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on the House
> Ian wrote:
> I would argue that by the year 2200 or 2300 science will probably have a
> pretty good idea what type of warming is happening now and what caused it.
>
> Whether or not that knowledge does them any good is a giant open question.
>
Unfortunately if these past 10 years are a "special
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
> Could someone remind me why any of this matters?
Because you were really lied to this time. Not the fake Bush Lied.
> In case you're confused - and some of you seem to be - let me clear
> things up for:
>
> (A.) Duh.
> If you take *any* emai
Gruss Gott wrote:
> (C.) THEREFORE! ... Who the feck knows.
>
> The Earth is warming up, but climate science will NEVER be able to:
>
> 1.) Tell us if this is "special cause" or "common cause" warming and,
>
> 2.) If it is special cause, are humans causing it, and
>
> 3.) If it is special cause,
> Larry wrote:
>
> The only news sources that have claimed these emails have come from a
> whistle blower has been conservative oriented publications, such as
> the Washington Examiner and the Washington Times.
>
Could someone remind me why any of this matters?
In case you're confused - and some
Is that your scientific proof it was a hacker?
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> The only news sources that have claimed these emails have come from a
> whistle blower has been conservative oriented publications, such as
> the Washington Examiner and the Washington Time
The only news sources that have claimed these emails have come from a
whistle blower has been conservative oriented publications, such as
the Washington Examiner and the Washington Times.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Sam wrote:
>>
>>
Isn't that the street name for viagra?
> Funny how Jones said he didn't know what Hide the Decline meant.
>
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on the House of Fusion mailing lists
McIntyre: The deleted data from the Hide the Decline trick
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:47 PM, G Money wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Sam wrote:
>
>>
>> Funny how Jones said he didn't know what Hide the
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Funny how Jones said he didn't know what Hide the Decline meant.
>
^^ that's the part that bothered me. They asked the author what he meant
(can't be a better source to discover the truth than that) and he basically
claimed ignorance.
C'mon.
--
> That is an interesting read, thanks for pointing it out. Though I
> think that most of his criticisms are elitist bullshit. Who the hell
> cares that it is written in Fortran? Obviously he hasn't worked much
> in the physics community, there is lots of Fortran still there.
or Banking or Energy
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> My understanding is that the emails sent to the BBC and elsewhere do
> not generally contain all the emails in the various exchanges between
> parties. I could be wrong however.
You are correct, but the file was uploaded in full to realClim
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
