Man Based Global Warming....

The first link substantiates the hypothesis that the whole AGW thing is political. If it were based upon actual data, explained by "true" peer-reviewed science, the whole concept would be suspended until the "science is settled". For now, big government is sill trying to get bigger using a completely contrived crisis.

The second link is nothing but serious "shucking and jiving", an attempt to dance around what the leaked email and data really show. It doesn't even mention the corruption of the peer-review process!

Regarding the third link, it's nothing but climate alarmism. I can find any number of other references that show the polar bears are doing just fine, thank you. But even "if" the arctic is melting and the polar bear moms are eating their young, they've been through this before! The arctic has been warmer than this many times in the past. This is key to the Mann Hockey Stick issue. Mann says that it's NEVER been this hot before, and this fact justifies driving civilization back to a medieval standard of living. But now we see that he, with the help of others, cooked the data! They removed the Medievil Warm Period because it was too "inconvenient".

This whole AGW hypothesis, as presented, is just a pile of bushwah.

 

Involved,,, in the same way that Lester Maddox was "involved" in the civil rights movement! Pathetic!

Icarus

 

LOL, that's not violence. That is just explaining a simple fact of life when people mouth off. I said let's be more civil but since you like to play the child role then I'll just have to play the adult role and put you on time out.

Now back to the science.....

 

Well, you've certainly proved evolution. You still maintain the sensibility and problem solving skills of a neanderthal.

 

No, really, back to the science:

When Results Go Bad … Watts Up With That?

Wherein another serious climate scientist tries to communicate with CRU scientists, but recieves the runaround. He is unable to replicate their (and the IPCC) conclusions with the available data. AFter repeated attempts to reconcile the difference in results, he is told, "You are seriously mistaken." That's it - the data don't matter, you are wrong. That is 'science' for the gatekeepers at CRU (and other publically funded institutions.)

My only hope is that this will not fade away or be swept under the rug. At present, it seems it won't, but the ignorance of the general public and mainstream media's reluctance (inability? - the journalism schools seem to turn out 'repeaters' rather than reporters) to fully inform won't have me holding my breath.

God help us!

 

Maybe that is why I keep checking this thread. For the comedy. The phrase "back to the science" followed by a "watts up with that" link is priceless.

 

And yet you can't rebut a single thing posted there...

Now that is comedy!

 

The "science" of denialists has been refuted numerous times. The allegations based on the hack emails are not backed by the email themselves so there is nothing to refute.

I've asked before for evidence within the emails that there was any impropriety. None was offered because there is nothing there. It is all false confirmation of your bias.

 

I guess you missed this entire thread, especially the last few pages:

http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/72308-hadley-cru-files-emails-hacked-27.html

 

The ironic thing is that, as radioprius1 points out, you can refute nothing on WUWT, while the E-mails DO definitively show that RealClimate.org is a mouthpiece for corrupt science.

Laugh all you wish, it's beginning to sound maniacal. And try reading a link adn refuting what is presented. As I've said many times before, the TRUTH is the TRUTH, regardless of where you find it.

 

Yet again I ask. Post not a link to the entire set of emails or a blog post misrepresenting its content. You go and find an example where data was fudged or any impropriety.

 

Ok I'll bite:

How “The Trick” was pulled off Watts Up With That?

Visit that link, read it, and let us know why and how it misrepresents the truth, etc.

 

Radioprius1: Do you see how in that graph the one result that is different also contradicts the instrumental record? Why would you think that the most important result is the one divergent one and the one that contradicts the instrumental record? Not only that but here are many other unrelated measures it also contradicts.

 

Red herring. You failed to explain why that post was incorrect.

 

I don't think you know what an argument by red herring is...

 

Thank you Alric for failing repeatedly to make a point.

Another one bites the dust. lol

 

Screw it, this thread has turned into an episode of South Park and radioprius is playing the role of Eric Cartman! LMAO

Eric Cartman Is Simply Asking Questions, Glenn Beck Style Video

 

More name calling without answers. You guys are looking bad.

 

Let's see, why would anyone for other than ideological reasons pervert climate data? We've heard that this skeptic or that one cannot be trusted because he once received $10,000 from an energy company.

Phil Jones has received over $22,500,000 in grants since 1990.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4XLQCleuUYdFIxMnhMNnlXb2JQcDZUendjUXpWWUE&hl=en

Got that? If there were no concern over global temperature, he would have to be working for a living rather than fabricating and massaging data.

If he and his colleagues have done nothing wrong, why are other scientists now calling for their firings?

Keep your heads in the sand while the inconvenient truth continues to unfold.

 

You don't seem to realize that more than the tree ring data has been perverted - think urban heat island 'corrections' and who controlled tha data. But it's nice to know that some are now admitting it.

Interesting that Mann's most recent paper - released just in time to influence Copenhagen (and NOT anticipating the recent inconvenient revelations) is shown to once again invert data. That means when some data have shown a decline, he simply turned it upside down. Wow, look at that dramatic increase! What a crock.
This is a fact.

Look it up. I'm tired of providing links that are ignored. Hint - Tiljander.