Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T
  The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 33)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version

This topic is 150 pages long:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150 
Previous Page | Next Page
next newest topic | next oldest topic
The evidence against anthropogenic global warming by fierobear
Started on: 06-07-2008 02:13 PM
Replies: 5991 (78184 views)
Last post by: rinselberg on 02-01-2021 12:55 PM
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 05:35 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


Based on what, NASA GISS? What a f***ing joke.

Trivia question: how many weather stations are there to report on temperature from the Arctic (including the Arctic ocean, Canada, Russia, Greenland, and the rest of the Arctic)?

Don't know. The answer may be here:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm

I'm posting it before I have scanned carefully through the entire page, but at first glance it does look like there are a good number of weather stations in and around the Arctic ...

IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 05:59 AM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
The science of the time, which was SPECTACTUARLY WRONG. Another point you completely miss.


To whom? Warmist scientists whose livelihood depends on grant money to prove warming? You've gotta be KIDDING.


Show you facts. I said facts now not some random quote from one guy 10 years ago.


Yeah, the emails to the authors of the studies you are questioning. Man up and let them know you've discovered flaws in their work and see what they say. You're so confident in your position on here why not prove yourself to the ones you really have issue with?

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-20-2010).]

IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 06:07 AM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

newf

8704 posts
Member since Sep 2006
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


Based on what, NASA GISS? What a f***ing joke.

Trivia question: how many weather stations are there to report on temperature from the Arctic (including the Arctic ocean, Canada, Russia, Greenland, and the rest of the Arctic)?


Wait which arguement are you going with now? The data is false or it's true but they can't read it right or they read it right but it actually shows something other than what they are saying? Ironic that your position seems to change as much as the weather does.
IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 06:07 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
Based on what, NASA GISS? What a f***ing joke.

Trivia question: how many weather stations are there to report on temperature from the Arctic (including the Arctic ocean, Canada, Russia, Greenland, and the rest of the Arctic)?



NASA GISS a f***ing joke? I don''t think so ...

 
quote
GISS uses publicly available data from three sources to conduct its temperature analysis. The sources are weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperatures, and Antarctic research station measurements.


http://www.nasa.gov/home/hq...7_Warmest_temps.html

IP: Logged
Arns85GT
Member
Posts: 11159
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 01:10 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Arns85GTSend a Private Message to Arns85GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:


http://www.nasa.gov/home/hq...7_Warmest_temps.html


It's no joke, it is policy driven deception and fraud.... read the link. It is over 200 pages but worth the read.

Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?
This 111-page paper from the Science and Public Policy Institute examines how the three data centers
collecting terrestrial temperatures (NASA, NOAA and the Hadley CRU) collaborated to reduce the
number of climate measuring stations and manipulated data so as to overstate 20th century warming.
http://scienceandpublicpoli...als/surface_temp.pdf
IP: Logged
Arns85GT
Member
Posts: 11159
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 01:14 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Arns85GTSend a Private Message to Arns85GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

Arns85GT

11159 posts
Member since Jul 2003
You need to go back and read the emails again. Here is a good link


The Science and Public Policy Institute has published a 149-page analysis by Australian physicist, John
Costella, of the "Climategate" affair - the release of the emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia. Dr. Costella begins by explaining why Climategate is so distressing to
scientists. He then introduces the main characters (Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, Keith Biffa
and Ben Santer) and conducts a chronological examination of the key emails, including excerpts and a
link to each email quoted.
http://scienceandpublicpoli...ategate_analysis.pdf
IP: Logged
Arns85GT
Member
Posts: 11159
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 01:25 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Arns85GTSend a Private Message to Arns85GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

Arns85GT

11159 posts
Member since Jul 2003
The models used by NASA and the IPCC depend on the theoretically induced "hot spot" generated by increased water vapour around the equator. This theory has proven to be dead wrong. There is no "hot spot" and therefore the models predicting catastrophic global warming are further flawed. Read about this at

http://sciencespeak.com/SimpleHotspot.pdf

Arn

And here for the more full explanation

http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 12-20-2010).]

IP: Logged
Arns85GT
Member
Posts: 11159
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 01:30 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Arns85GTSend a Private Message to Arns85GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

Arns85GT

11159 posts
Member since Jul 2003
This blogger has a great read on why the "hockey stick graph" is flawed from the outset. It really lays out in layman's terms what we are dealing with

http://joannenova.com.au/20...ies-again/#more-9878

Arn
IP: Logged
Arns85GT
Member
Posts: 11159
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 01:32 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Arns85GTSend a Private Message to Arns85GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

Arns85GT

11159 posts
Member since Jul 2003
here is the explanation of how we know we have been conned.

http://scienceandpublicpoli...have_been_conned.pdf

Arn
IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 01:37 PM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
In reporting on retractions in the Sunday Times of London and an outlet in Frankfort,
Germany, Newsweek called “Climategate” a “highly orchestrated, manufactured
scandal.”

The Guardian UK reported on July 8 that: “Nothing about the so-called “Climategate”
affair challenges the fact that climate change is real, urgent and increasing.”

On July 1, Time, in a post entitled “Climategate” Continues to Crumble,” wrote of the
Mann exoneration: “Mann’s acquittal is just the most recent bit of news showing that
“Climategate” – and the wave of climate skepticism that seemed to arise at the beginning
of the year – had little basis.” It went on to report that: “It’s long since time to deal with
the consequences, and stop arguing about the footnotes.”

Editorial writer, Eugene Robinson in The Washington Post, similarly concluded that the
messages “do not suggest any fudging of data, according to a report issued Wednesday
by a blue-ribbon panel in Britain, where the e-mails were hacked.”

In an editorial on July 10,The New York Times asserted: “Perhaps now we can put the
manufactured controversy known as “Climategate” behind us and turn to the task of
actually doing something about global warming.”

In the wake of multiple exonerations, on July 22 The Los Angeles Times reminded
readers that: “[I]nvestigations have shown that the e-mails amounted to little more than
fits of pique. The most recent review, conducted by an independent team funded by the
University of East Anglia, found no evidence that the researchers had undermined
scientific findings by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or any other group,
and that they neither withheld access to data nor tampered with it.”

http://www.unep.org/pdf/Pre...e_Science_review.pdf
IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 01:49 PM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

newf

8704 posts
Member since Sep 2006
SPPI - Exec. Director/President - Robert (Bob) Furguson

Ferguson was previously the initial Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSSP), a project of the corporate-funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FOF).[3] Exxon had provided $100,000 in 2002 specifically for the "Center for Sound Science and Public Policy" (sic) as well as a further $97,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach Activities", and a further $35,000 for "Global Climate Change Science Projects";[4] In subsequent years Exxon continued it support for the project including $50,000 for "Project Support - Sound Science Center" in 2003[5], $70,000 for "Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change" in 2004;[6] $140,000 to the organization in 2005 but without a specific amount for CSPP identified, $90,000 for the "Science & Policy Center" in 2006[7] and $90,000 for "energy literacy" in 2007.[8]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/...ic_Policy_Institute)

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-20-2010).]

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 01:50 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Don't know. The answer may be here:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm

I'm posting it before I have scanned carefully through the entire page, but at first glance it does look like there are a good number of weather stations in and around the Arctic ...


I read that they extrapolated the entire arctic from ONE station. I'll try to find that.

In the meantime, here is a good write up on the disparity between the GISS surface temp data and satellite data, and the UHI effect:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/...ow-differing-trends/
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 01:54 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

fierobear

27075 posts
Member since Aug 2000
 
quote
Originally posted by newf:


Show you facts. I said facts now not some random quote from one guy 10 years ago.


I just did, you dimwit. The "one guy" is a SCIENTIST from the UK's Hadley Center. The reason why I posted a quote from a scientist from 10 years ago is that if the warming is accelerating like they claim, and snowfall is alleged to disappear, then the snowfall from the last few years shows that they were very wrong about that conclusion.

 
quote
Yeah, the emails to the authors of the studies you are questioning. Man up and let them know you've discovered flaws in their work and see what they say. You're so confident in your position on here why not prove yourself to the ones you really have issue with?


What would be the point?

IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 01:56 PM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


I read that they extrapolated the entire arctic from ONE station. I'll try to find that.

In the meantime, here is a good write up on the disparity between the GISS surface temp data and satellite data, and the UHI effect:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/...ow-differing-trends/


http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121b/

You can contact them and find out the truth if you'd like.

Steve Cole, 202-358-0918, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. stephen.e.cole@nasa.gov

Leslie McCarthy, 212-678-5507, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, N.Y., leslie.m.mccarthy@nasa.gov

Adam Voiland, 301-352-4631, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 02:01 PM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

newf

8704 posts
Member since Sep 2006
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:

I just did, you dimwit. The "one guy" is a SCIENTIST from the UK's Hadley Center. The reason why I posted a quote from a scientist from 10 years ago is that if the warming is accelerating like they claim, and snowfall is alleged to disappear, then the snowfall from the last few years shows that they were very wrong about that conclusion.


What would be the point?


Awwww back to name calling?

OK so what that one gentleman was quoted as saying 10 years ago proves that he was speaking for the scientific community or even his organization? Quite the stretch there.


The point? Prove your theory instead of spouting claims and insults to people that don't believe you. man up and confront the source of your problem.

What's the matter Colonel Sanders?

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-20-2010).]

IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 02:07 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by newf:


Awwww back to name calling?


Yeah, newf, because you're being a dimwit. Seriously. You say you believe the science, I present a quote from a scientist...a WARMING scientist...

 
quote
OK so what that one gentleman was quoted as saying 10 years ago proves that he was speaking for the scientific community or even his organization? Quite the stretch there.


...who works for the Hadley Center, who produce the HadCRUT temperature data set. It doesn't get more official than that. And you dismiss it. That makes you sound like a dimwit.


 
quote
The point? Prove your theory instead of spouting claims and insults to people that don't believe you. man up and confront the source of your problem.

What's the matter Colonel Sanders?



How would my sending emails to the scientists have any effect? I'll email anyone and say anything to them if I thought it would matter. It would be a waste of time, not a matter of being "chicken".

IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 02:08 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

fierobear

27075 posts
Member since Aug 2000
 
quote
Originally posted by newf:


http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121b/

You can contact them and find out the truth if you'd like.

Steve Cole, 202-358-0918, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. stephen.e.cole@nasa.gov

Leslie McCarthy, 212-678-5507, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, N.Y., leslie.m.mccarthy@nasa.gov

Adam Voiland, 301-352-4631, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.


Why, so they can accuse me of being employed by big oil? I'd rather focus my efforts on political opposition, which I do.

IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 02:16 PM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


Why, so they can accuse me of being employed by big oil? I'd rather focus my efforts on political opposition, which I do.


I see, you already know what they will say to you, so you can't be bothered. haha, I didn't think you would, just wanted to see if you would put up or shut up. It seems you won't do either...I can't say I'm surprised.

Keep on truckin, man.

IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 02:30 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by newf:


I see, you already know what they will say to you, so you can't be bothered. haha, I didn't think you would, just wanted to see if you would put up or shut up. It seems you won't do either...I can't say I'm surprised.

Keep on truckin, man.


I've already seen what they do. "realclimate.org" is a good example. Others, including climate scientists, have tried to debate the subject there and their posts get deleted.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/...ion-by-real-climate/

IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 02:40 PM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


I've already seen what they do. "realclimate.org" is a good example. Others, including climate scientists, have tried to debate the subject there and their posts get deleted.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/...ion-by-real-climate/


I already told you I'm not surprised, just let it go if you are afraid to. It's OK, just thought you might want an opportunity to prove yourself and your knowledge on the matter.
Maybe you'll realize that you don't "know" and just have an opinion on Climate Change like most everyone else.
IP: Logged
Arns85GT
Member
Posts: 11159
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 02:54 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Arns85GTSend a Private Message to Arns85GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by newf:


http://www.unep.org/pdf/Pre...e_Science_review.pdf


The website publishing your data is owned outright by United Nations Environment Program. Now there is a solid verifiable source... hah....

Arn

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 02:55 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by newf:


I already told you I'm not surprised, just let it go if you are afraid to. It's OK, just thought you might want an opportunity to prove yourself and your knowledge on the matter.
Maybe you'll realize that you don't "know" and just have an opinion on Climate Change like most everyone else.


Wow, you've gotten this whole thing wrong. It's not about me "proving myself and my knowledge", it's about sharing information that I find. Global warming is a SCAM and must be stopped before our governments waste horribly large amounts of money on a non-issue. THAT'S what this is about, it's not about me, newf. Period.
IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 03:06 PM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:


The website publishing your data is owned outright by United Nations Environment Program. Now there is a solid verifiable source... hah....

Arn


Wait, the facts are right there with dates of the media retractions. Are you saying they're made up?
IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 03:10 PM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

newf

8704 posts
Member since Sep 2006
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


Wow, you've gotten this whole thing wrong. It's not about me "proving myself and my knowledge", it's about sharing information that I find. Global warming is a SCAM and must be stopped before our governments waste horribly large amounts of money on a non-issue. THAT'S what this is about, it's not about me, newf. Period.


At least you finally admit you only have an opinion and don't know. We're making progress.
IP: Logged
Arns85GT
Member
Posts: 11159
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 03:49 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Arns85GTSend a Private Message to Arns85GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by newf:


Wait, the facts are right there with dates of the media retractions. Are you saying they're made up?


First off you have to assume the report is quoted accurately, then you have to assume the reporter got it right.

And yes, the IPCC has proven it will lie to get its ends. It is logical to confirm everything you read on their website independently.

For the record, the enquiry that was done and absolved the scientists was done by their peers, the original old boys club. And if you have read their actual report, they find the science methodology was sound, not the actual facts being correct. In fact, they conveniently did not address the lack of weather stations in diverse locations, and the placing of weather stations in heat islands.

Find another more reliable source.

Arn
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 04:09 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by newf:
At least you finally admit you only have an opinion and don't know. We're making progress.


No, but thank you for that attempt at pure crap.

IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 05:43 PM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


No, but thank you for that attempt at pure crap.


Back it up and write the emails Colonel.
IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 05:49 PM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

newf

8704 posts
Member since Sep 2006
 
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:


First off you have to assume the report is quoted accurately, then you have to assume the reporter got it right.

And yes, the IPCC has proven it will lie to get its ends. It is logical to confirm everything you read on their website independently.

For the record, the enquiry that was done and absolved the scientists was done by their peers, the original old boys club. And if you have read their actual report, they find the science methodology was sound, not the actual facts being correct. In fact, they conveniently did not address the lack of weather stations in diverse locations, and the placing of weather stations in heat islands.

Find another more reliable source.

Arn


Why would I need to? You are the one doing the assuming. Prove it wrong.

BTW last I heard it was no less than four independent investigations into the contents of these emails – conducted by scientists, universities, and governments, all coming to the same conclusion "absolutely no science was compromised by the contents of the emails. The CRU scientists weren’t as good as they should have been about making data easily accessible to others, but that was the only real criticism. These scientists are not frauds, although they are accused of it on a daily basis."

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-20-2010).]

IP: Logged
Arns85GT
Member
Posts: 11159
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 06:31 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Arns85GTSend a Private Message to Arns85GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
LOL you call me "assuming". Well, you "assumed" that everything Al Gore told you, and the IPCC told you is the truth and never bothered to challenge it. So who is assuming? You or me? I am the critic and you are the assumptive one.

Now you assume that Global Warming is legit and this thread is full of information challenging that premise. I think it is for you to prove, not me. I think they are a bunch of crooks. You are the babe in the woods.

Arn
IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 06:35 PM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:

LOL you call me "assuming". Well, you "assumed" that everything Al Gore told you, and the IPCC told you is the truth and never bothered to challenge it. So who is assuming? You or me? I am the critic and you are the assumptive one.

Now you assume that Global Warming is legit and this thread is full of information challenging that premise. I think it is for you to prove, not me. I think they are a bunch of crooks. You are the babe in the woods.

Arn


Hahaha keep trying, I love it when people ASSUME to know me on here. I try not to assume too much and who the hell said I assumed or believed everything Al Gore said? Or are you assuming yet again?

You think they are bunch of crooks? Or you "Know" they are?

I'm sure you can use the emails I gave the other "expert" and submit your theories. Be a hero and save the world from the scam.

Or go ahead and think whatever you want but don't pretend to "know" and don't think that everyone that doesn't share your thoughts is somehow less than you.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-20-2010).]

IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 07:38 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by newf:
Back it up and write the emails Colonel.


Based on the way you are issuing commands to me, you seem to think yourself a Colonel.

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 07:40 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

fierobear

27075 posts
Member since Aug 2000
 
quote
Originally posted by newf:


Why would I need to? You are the one doing the assuming. Prove it wrong.

BTW last I heard it was no less than four independent investigations into the contents of these emails – conducted by scientists, universities, and governments, all coming to the same conclusion "absolutely no science was compromised by the contents of the emails. The CRU scientists weren’t as good as they should have been about making data easily accessible to others, but that was the only real criticism. These scientists are not frauds, although they are accused of it on a daily basis."



It was the fox investigating the henhouse. The investigations were conducted by the agencies on THEMSELVES. Given that climate science brings in millions of grant money for these universities and other agencies, the conclusion was foregone. Given the circumstances, I expected nothing other than a whitewash, and that's what we got.
IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post12-20-2010 07:52 PM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


It was the fox investigating the henhouse. The investigations were conducted by the agencies on THEMSELVES. Given that climate science brings in millions of grant money for these universities and other agencies, the conclusion was foregone. Given the circumstances, I expected nothing other than a whitewash, and that's what we got.


hahahaha of course, keep spinning and changing tacts. You are the expert.
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post12-21-2010 02:19 AM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by newf:
You are the expert.


Yes I am. So STFU.

IP: Logged
maryjane
Member
Posts: 69576
From: Copperas Cove Texas
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: (4)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 441
Rate this member

Report this Post12-21-2010 02:43 AM Click Here to See the Profile for maryjaneSend a Private Message to maryjaneEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


It was the fox investigating the henhouse. The investigations were conducted by the agencies on THEMSELVES. Given that climate science brings in millions of grant money for these universities and other agencies, the conclusion was foregone. Given the circumstances, I expected nothing other than a whitewash, and that's what we got.


That's the problem with "peer reviews". They are done by people of like minds. Never a good thing, because it is impossible to arrive at a truely independant and unbiased result.
IP: Logged
maryjane
Member
Posts: 69576
From: Copperas Cove Texas
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: (4)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 441
Rate this member

Report this Post12-21-2010 02:49 AM Click Here to See the Profile for maryjaneSend a Private Message to maryjaneEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

maryjane

69576 posts
Member since Apr 2001
FB, you have a PM.
IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post12-21-2010 02:50 AM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:


That's the problem with "peer reviews". They are done by people of like minds. Never a good thing, because it is impossible to arrive at a truely independant and unbiased result.


We are not talking about all peer reviews however these were investigations as far as I know. And you don't think there are people in any community of peers that would absolutely love to prove others wrong?

IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post12-21-2010 03:08 AM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by newf:


We are not talking about all peer reviews however these were investigations as far as I know. And you don't think there are people in any community of peers that would absolutely love to prove others wrong?


Not when they all are depending on both the grant money *and* not getting their reputations trashed by being wrong about something. Especially with all the predictions of disaster, scary talk and arm waving.

IP: Logged
maryjane
Member
Posts: 69576
From: Copperas Cove Texas
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: (4)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 441
Rate this member

Report this Post12-21-2010 03:23 AM Click Here to See the Profile for maryjaneSend a Private Message to maryjaneEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
At this stage of the game, the term "science" itself, would be in jeopardy.
IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post12-21-2010 03:25 AM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


Not when they all are depending on both the grant money *and* not getting their reputations trashed by being wrong about something. Especially with all the predictions of disaster, scary talk and arm waving.


Wait..... the independent investigations were based on grants and they lied to protect their reputations?

I'm guessing you have reputable proof of all this, or do you just "know" it? Being an expert and all.

IP: Logged
Previous Page | Next Page

This topic is 150 pages long:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150 
next newest topic | next oldest topic

All times are ET (US)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock