British Inquiry: Climate data NOT manipulated

[Cypress]

Inquiry: Climate data NOT manipulated

British lawmakers say science sound, but want transparency

LONDON - The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.

The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said they had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

In their report released Wednesday, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."


The 14-member committee's investigation is one of three launched after the dissemination, in November, of e-mails and data stolen from the research unit.

The e-mails appeared to show scientists berating skeptics in sometimes intensely personal attacks, discussing ways to shield their data from public records laws, and discussing ways to keep skeptics' research out of peer-reviewed journals.

One that attracted particular media attention was Jones' reference to a "trick" that could be used to "hide the decline" of temperatures.

"Hide the decline" was not an attempt to conceal data but was scientific shorthand for discarding erroneous data, the committee concluded. Similarly, Jones intended "trick" to mean a neat way of handling evidence, rather than anything underhanded, the inquiry found.

The e-mails' publication ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit sparked an online furor, with skeptics of manmade climate change calling the e-mails' publication "Climategate" and claiming them as proof that the science behind global warming had been exaggerated — or even made up altogether.

The lawmakers said they decided to investigate due to "the serious implications for U.K. science.....

hil Willis, the committee's chairman, said of the e-mails that "there's no denying that some of them were pretty appalling."

But the committee found no evidence of anything beyond "a blunt refusal to share data," adding that the idea that Jones was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that weakened the case for global warming was clearly wrong.

Deeper inquiries promised
Lawmakers stressed that their report — which was written after only a single day of oral testimony — did not cover all the issues and would not be as in-depth as the two other inquiries into the e-mail scandal that are still pending and which were instigated by the University of East Anglia.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36104206/ns/us_news-environment


Regression Analysis of People who were duped into supporting the Iraq War, and those who were duped into believing "Climate Gate":

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/9936/presentation2e.jpg



EDIT:

P.S., and I'm willing to make a friendly wager with any climate denialist on this board, that the two other pending investigations are going to find substantially the same thing: that the science is sound, there is no evidence of data manipulation.......and that there there is no global or university conspiracy to cook the books or manipulate the data.

[USFREEDOM911]

Regression Analysis of People who were duped into supporting the Iraq War, and those who were duped into believing "Climate Gate":

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/9936/presentation2e.jpg



EDIT:

P.S., and I'm willing to make a friendly wager with any climate denialist on this board, that the two other pending investigations are going to find substantially the same thing: that the science is sound, there is no evidence of data manipulation.......and that there there is no global or university conspiracy to cook the books or manipulate the data.


I've got some Ocean front property, in Nebraska, that I would be willing to sell you.

[Cypress]

Translation:


I've got some Ocean front property, in Nebraska, that I would be willing to sell you.....I'm going to believe what I read on Drudge and some rightwing blogs NO MATTER what some professional inquiries report.

[USFREEDOM911]

Translation:

LOL

And yet, you'll believe anything that ANYONE has to say is proof that global warming is fact.

So; are you saying that you don't want to buy that Ocean front property??

[Cancel 2016.2]

BREAKING NEWS..... FOX investigates break in at chicken coup.... finds he (oops, I mean the perpetrator) did nothing wrong.

Amazing how a government body that was touting the 'consensus' and leading the fear mongering charge of 'global catastrophe' finds that the 'researchers' whose data they used to support their insane positions 'wasn't manipulated'.

Cause if they 'found' that it was manipulated.... that would mean they were either duped (which doesn't make them look good) or they were complicit (which doesn't make them look good).

But to the flat earth denialists like Cypress... it is all good now... his masters told him so.

[Cancel 2016.2]

Lets truly recap once again for the idiots like Cypress...

Does anyone have the heart to tell poor little Cypress about the hi-jacking of science by the global warming fear mongers? Should we point out yet again how they misled the public with their fear mongering? Should we point out yet again how the power grab by the politicians hijacked the science behind the studies? How the suppression of opposing views, the demand that a 'consensus' had been reached and that the 'debate was over', how the data was unassailable.... only to find out....

1) No significant warming for 15 years (from the mouth of one of the leading fear mongers)

2) NO conclusion on whether the medieval warming period was warmer than now due to lack of data.

3) IPCC pushed propaganda and proclaimed it was 'science'... now we find one error after another.

Why? What could be the motivation that the flat earth global warming fear mongers have for doing so? Could it be the power the government agencies would then have over the corporate world and the citizens? Could it be the potential for BILLIONS more in funding that the 'scientists' would get? Nah... that couldn't be it.

Just ask Cypress.... he will STILL tell you it is a settled debate... he will still try to equate those who question the AGW theory with Holocaust denialists... because that makes them sound 'evilzzz'. He will now also try to pretend that only right wing blogs are reporting on the errors or quoting Jones. He will still pretend that there is no doubt. He will still mock the idiots who proclaim that the current east coast snow storms are proof that AGW is wrong, while at the same time ignoring all the idiots that have used severe weather incidents as proof of AGW.

But yeah Cypress.... the liberal side has NEVER hijacked Science. Just keep posting how the government (who again wants to exert more control over the populace) agencies are still 'behind' AGW. Keep pretending that it is just right wing tabloids covering this.... ignore the NY Times and BBC.... because that is what a good little leg humping lemming does.

[Topspin]

Love the " hide the define in temperatures" really means erronious data. SNL couldn't produce better comedy. Thanks

[Cypress]

Love the " hide the define in temperatures" really means erronious data. SNL couldn't produce better comedy. Thanks


Stick to accounting and stocks, bro'!

This Dr. Jones dude would have to be an idiot to try to "hide" something that he, and others, have alreadly routinely written about, published about, and talked about in public for years; i.e., the erroneous tree ring data.

Trying to "hide" something that is already in the public domain, and is well known in the science community, would be something only a fucking retard would do.

The most reasonable and plausible explanation is exactly what the inquiry reported:


Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the words “hide the decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous. We expect that this is a matter the Scientific Appraisal Panel will address.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/3[/quote[87i.pdf


Topspin, I'll totally defer to you on stock tips and cajun food. But try not to make me laugh again when you post on a science thread. :pke:


(j/ teasing)



The next two inquires will be out, and they will come to substantially the same conclusions this inquiry did. I'll make sure to post them when they do. Not that it will matter to teabaggers. They'll still believe pajamasmedia/blogspot.com. Which is pathetic, retarded...and yet still, oddly hilarious!

[tinfoil]

BREAKING NEWS..... FOX investigates break in at chicken coup.... finds he (oops, I mean the perpetrator) did nothing wrong.

Amazing how a government body that was touting the 'consensus' and leading the fear mongering charge of 'global catastrophe' finds that the 'researchers' whose data they used to support their insane positions 'wasn't manipulated'.

Cause if they 'found' that it was manipulated.... that would mean they were either duped (which doesn't make them look good) or they were complicit (which doesn't make them look good).

But to the flat earth denialists like Cypress... it is all good now... his masters told him so.

NO SHIT! My god cypress is a total fucking tool!

how do you look at their report without laughing? LOL I'll say it again. what a total fucking tool

[tinfoil]

hey crypiss, do you understand that they used real temps after 1960 because tree ring proxy data, on which the unprecedented warming claim was based, does not show the trend expected.

You fucking idiot

[Cypress]

Hey tinfoil dude,
Remember those hacked emails that "proved" the science of human-caused climate change was one great big liberal hoax?? A global conspiracy of Marxist-Lenninist scientists?

Who could have guessed it was a fake, made-up pseudo scandal, perpetrated and promoted by dupes who believe what they read on Drudge and rightwing blogs? The very same idiots who were also so easily duped into supporting the Iraq Fiasco.

No one could have predicted!



House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

Eighth Report of Session 2009–10

Summary....


In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers


We are content that the phrases such as “trick” or “hiding the decline” were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.






http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HC387-IUEAFinalEmbargoedv21.pdf

[tinfoil]

crypiss, go find another instance where real temps were mated to proxy temps and I'll believe Jones and Mann followed standard scientific procedures. If you can't find another study that uses a similar technique, then you're full of shit!

[Cypress]

crypiss, go find another instance where real temps were mated to proxy temps and I'll believe Jones and Mann followed standard scientific procedures. If you can't find another study that uses a similar technique, then you're full of shit!

what's your science PhD in, again?

Oh, that's right. You don't have one. You do light fixtures, or something.

I told you before man, when I have a choice of either believing a college drop out with zero science qualifications, or the U.S. Academy of Sciences, NASA and a professional report from House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, then my choice is clear. Sorry, man!

[FUCK THE POLICE]

1) No significant warming for 15 years (from the mouth of one of the leading fear mongers)


One of the biggest outright lies of science denying conspiracy theorists.

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed.





Sounds like he's with you on this one, SF. Nice way to twist someones words. He was saying that the data was noisy in the short term. He wasn't saying global climate change had stopped.

[tinfoil]

what's your science PhD in, again?

Oh, that's right. You don't have one. You do light fixtures, or something.

I told you before man, when I have a choice of either believing a college drop out with zero science qualifications, or the U.S. Academy of Sciences, NASA and a professional report from House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, then my choice is clear. Sorry, man!
what an ass!. the fraud is that the real temps were mated (past 1960) onto proxy derived temps(with error margins greater than the entire projected alarmist temp change )

Do you dispute this?
You idiot!

Go buy some carbon credits, you religious nutter

[tinfoil]

PROVEN!! crypiss can't talk science! just look at his response. He goes ad hom on me because he can't disprove the fraudulent proxy temp bullshit that Jones and Mann along with the IPCC passed off as facts. It's a lie and it's fraudulent and no matter how many times Crypiss calls me names or questions my scientific knowledge, it doesn't change the fraud.

Fuck you ,warmers!

[FUCK THE POLICE]

2) NO conclusion on whether the medieval warming period was warmer than now due to lack of data.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif
Figure 1: Reconstructed surface temperature anomaly for Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 A.D.), relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temp_Pattern_1999_2008_NOAA.jpg

Figure 3: Surface temperature anomaly for period 1999 to 2008, relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable (NOAA (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.noaamergedtemp.html)).

[FUCK THE POLICE]

3) IPCC pushed propaganda and proclaimed it was 'science'... now we find one error after another.

I know you are completely and totally ignorant of science, but this kind of creationists-type argument is really below you. Science sometimes makes mistakes. Unlike with climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists, creationists and other groups, science admits these errors, and revises its prediction. That's how things work. This is just as ridiculous as the creationists who say that clearly the entire evolutionary theory is flawed every time we discover new evidence and revise our old theory.

Besides, practically the only thing the IPCC got wrong was the Himalayan glaciers. Apparently one error = one error after another.

[cancel2 2022]

Here is an excellent video on Vimeo called Catastrophe Denied.

Catastrophe Denied: A Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory (live version) on Vimeo

[Cancel 2016.2]

I know you are completely and totally ignorant of science, but this kind of creationists-type argument is really below you. Science sometimes makes mistakes. Unlike with climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists, creationists and other groups, science admits these errors, and revises its prediction. That's how things work. This is just as ridiculous as the creationists who say that clearly the entire evolutionary theory is flawed every time we discover new evidence and revise our old theory.

Besides, practically the only thing the IPCC got wrong was the Himalayan glaciers. Apparently one error = one error after another.

LMAO.... this wasn't an error based on a miscalculation. This was an error that was a direct result of complete sloppiness on their part (and that is being kind to them).

Also, if you believe it was just the Himalayan portion in which they erred then you are either not paying attention or deliberately ignoring the other 'errors' they made.

[Thorn]

I know you are completely and totally ignorant of science, but this kind of creationists-type argument is really below you. Science sometimes makes mistakes. Unlike with climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists, creationists and other groups, science admits these errors, and revises its prediction. That's how things work. This is just as ridiculous as the creationists who say that clearly the entire evolutionary theory is flawed every time we discover new evidence and revise our old theory.

Besides, practically the only thing the IPCC got wrong was the Himalayan glaciers. Apparently one error = one error after another.

The Himalayan glaciers prediction had resulted from a gratuitous remark by someone who was not even a scientist. That study apparently was not done at all; the IPCC just heard of the remark and ran with it without questioning its source. Can't blame science for something that a member of the general public blathers about; however it should have been considered seriously and systematically by people who knew what they were doing.

[tinfoil]

People don't blame science, nor are sceptics critical of science-- when it's science!!

The IPCC is not science or scientists

[Cypress]

People don't blame science, nor are sceptics critical of science-- when it's science!!

The IPCC is not science or scientists


Hilarious.

You and numerous other two-time Bush voters invested months, and several dozen posts saying that the scientists were lying, misleading and manipulating climate data.

This probe just cleared the Dr. Jones, the dude you invested your self in claiming was lying. Dr. Mann was cleared as well. Pretty much every single claim you and others have made about a conspiracy of lying, liberal scientists has been dubunked.

I'll post the other pending investigations when they come out. They're going to show that the science is sound, that there was no global conspiracy of Marxist scientists, and show that you were foolish for believing Drudge and those rightwing blogs you visit.


On a serious note, there's a very good chance that history is going to judge you and the climate deniers very harshly.

[DamnYankee]

what's your science PhD in, again?

... And yours? :palm:

[tinfoil]

LOL crypiss still thinks they cleared Jones of stuff. They didn't do anything of the sort.
why isn't he back at his job?

[tinfoil]

Hey crypiss, the facts still remains that the proxy data was replaced by real temps and that was not disclosed to the policy makers report. Look it up, asshole

[tinfoil]

It looks as if the tottering IPCC has just made its biggest mistake yet. Twenty-four hours after the announcement of an “independent” inquiry into certain aspects of its activities it is possible to make a considered assessment of its significance. By any reasoned analysis, it is not only a whitewash but one in which the paint is spread so thinly as to be transparent.

First, who appointed this review body? Those two iconic standard bearers of climate science objectivity, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC head (still!) Rajendra Pachauri. There is nothing like being judge in your own cause – it secures a less damaging verdict. Ban Ki-moon is the clown who, on a visit to the Arctic last September, despairingly proclaimed that “100 billion tons” of polar ice were melting each year, when the sea-ice around him had just extended itself by half a million square kilometres more than at the same time the previous year. Pachauri, among many other solecisms, is also the buffoon who denounced criticism of the IPCC’s absurd claims about melting Himalayan glaciers as “voodoo science”.

Then there is the review’s terms of reference. It has four remits: to analyse the IPCC process, including links with other UN agencies; to review use of non-peer reviewed sources and data quality control; to assess how procedures handle “the full range of scientific views; and to review IPCC communications with the public and the media. So, most of its activity will relate to reorganisation of the IPCC’s propaganda operation and how it can be beefed up.

Nowhere are there proposals for it to revisit, in depth, the IPCC’s 3,000-page 2007 report and repudiate the vast range of inaccuracies and downright fabrications it contains. Instead, the review panel has to report by August so that its meaningless conclusions on a variety of irrelevant issues can be used to sanitise the IPCC’s next report, to be prepared at a meeting in October.

As for the personnel, the review will be conducted by the Inter-Academy Council and headed by its co-chairman Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf, who recently broadcast on Dutch radio a complacent statement about the “consensus” on climate science. The Inter-Academy Council is a representative body for a number of national academies of science, most of which are committed to the climate change cause.

So, a very obvious whitewash and presumably very satisfactory to the IPCC camp. Nevertheless, I repeat, it is probably the most serious mistake the AGW fanatics have so far made. This is because they have seriously underestimated the amount of trouble they are in. Any competent political spin doctor (and the AGW scam is pure politics, not science) would have told them that, as things stand in 2010, they had one last chance – and only one chance – to salvage their bogus crusade.

That was to allow a genuinely independent investigation, including highly qualified sceptics, to analyse the 2007 report and expose all its fallacies – which are already in the public domain in any case. They could then have apologised, sacked Pachauri (which they will probably do anyway) and prepared an equally mendacious but more sophisticated report, jettisoning the more extravagant scare-mongering for the time being, and so clawed back wavering support among the public.

Instead, they have opted for a very obvious whitewash, discredited from the day of its launch, that will provoke hilarity and increased scepticism when it reports. After that, there will be no road back. We should be grateful that the arrogance and over-confidence engendered by their longstanding immunity from challenge (but not any more) prompted the AGW fraudsters to create so inadequate a smokescreen.

This investigation is very good news for sceptics – not because it will denounce any significant flaws in the AGW imposture, but because it will not. AGW credulity is already a minority faith; but there is a further constituency of waverers, ready to break off like a melting iceberg from the main floe, whose final defection will mean the AGW movement is deprived of critical mass. This pathetic attempt at a cover-up could well be the catalyst for that decisive departure. Think about it and be glad.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100029630/climategate-the-ipccs-whitewash-review-is-the-agw-camps-biggest-mistake-yet/

[Taichiliberal]

Inquiry: Climate data NOT manipulated

British lawmakers say science sound, but want transparency

LONDON - The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.

The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said they had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

In their report released Wednesday, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."


The 14-member committee's investigation is one of three launched after the dissemination, in November, of e-mails and data stolen from the research unit.

The e-mails appeared to show scientists berating skeptics in sometimes intensely personal attacks, discussing ways to shield their data from public records laws, and discussing ways to keep skeptics' research out of peer-reviewed journals.

One that attracted particular media attention was Jones' reference to a "trick" that could be used to "hide the decline" of temperatures.

"Hide the decline" was not an attempt to conceal data but was scientific shorthand for discarding erroneous data, the committee concluded. Similarly, Jones intended "trick" to mean a neat way of handling evidence, rather than anything underhanded, the inquiry found.

The e-mails' publication ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit sparked an online furor, with skeptics of manmade climate change calling the e-mails' publication "Climategate" and claiming them as proof that the science behind global warming had been exaggerated — or even made up altogether.

The lawmakers said they decided to investigate due to "the serious implications for U.K. science.....

hil Willis, the committee's chairman, said of the e-mails that "there's no denying that some of them were pretty appalling."

But the committee found no evidence of anything beyond "a blunt refusal to share data," adding that the idea that Jones was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that weakened the case for global warming was clearly wrong.

Deeper inquiries promised
Lawmakers stressed that their report — which was written after only a single day of oral testimony — did not cover all the issues and would not be as in-depth as the two other inquiries into the e-mail scandal that are still pending and which were instigated by the University of East Anglia.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36104206...ws-environment


Regression Analysis of People who were duped into supporting the Iraq War, and those who were duped into believing "Climate Gate":

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/9936/presentation2e.jpg



EDIT:

P.S., and I'm willing to make a friendly wager with any climate denialist on this board, that the two other pending investigations are going to find substantially the same thing: that the science is sound, there is no evidence of data manipulation.......and that there there is no global or university conspiracy to cook the books or manipulate the data.


This is going to be REAL interesting!

[DamnYankee]

...There is nothing like being judge in your own cause – it secures a less damaging verdict. ... No reason to look any further. What ever happened to "peer review"? :cof1:

[tinfoil]

check this out. when arctic ice melts, global warming is the culprit, but when ice recovers, it's a fluke!!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/04/01/north-sea-ice-arctic.html

This is climate science for you!

[Cancel 2016.2]

Hilarious.

You and numerous other two-time Bush voters invested months, and several dozen posts saying that the scientists were lying, misleading and manipulating climate data.

This probe just cleared the Dr. Jones, the dude you invested your self in claiming was lying. Dr. Mann was cleared as well. Pretty much every single claim you and others have made about a conspiracy of lying, liberal scientists has been dubunked.

I'll post the other pending investigations when they come out. They're going to show that the science is sound, that there was no global conspiracy of Marxist scientists, and show that you were foolish for believing Drudge and those rightwing blogs you visit.


On a serious note, there's a very good chance that history is going to judge you and the climate deniers very harshly.

Obviously the flat earth fear mongering global warming idiots still have Cypress cheering them on.

He again ignores the fact that the fox was asked to evaluate the validity of the other foxes performance in the chicken house. The conclusion??? Why... the foxes did no wrong!!! what else?

I mean, seriously Gumby... did you really expect the proponents of the fear mongering to come to the conclusion that the people whose data they relied on to justify their fear mongering were wrong?

[Taichiliberal]

check this out. when arctic ice melts, global warming is the culprit, but when ice recovers, it's a fluke!!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/04/01/north-sea-ice-arctic.html

This is climate science for you!

:palm: Weren't you and the other clowns down playing (if not outright denying) a decade of unprecendented melting in the first place?

What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?

[Taichiliberal]

Obviously the flat earth fear mongering global warming idiots still have Cypress cheering them on.

He again ignores the fact that the fox was asked to evaluate the validity of the other foxes performance in the chicken house. The conclusion??? Why... the foxes did no wrong!!! what else?

I mean, seriously Gumby... did you really expect the proponents of the fear mongering to come to the conclusion that the people whose data they relied on to justify their fear mongering were wrong?

Actually, it's you and folks of your mindset who are consistently in denial of facts......now what's fascinating is that you by hook, line and sinker the accusations brought upon by the edited hacking of some jokers of questionable reputation.

And like I asked the local crank...what's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?

[DamnYankee]

:palm: Weren't you and the other clowns down playing (if not outright denying) a decade of unprecendented melting in the first place?

What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?
No one's "into" pollution Libbie. But you Lib-Tards want to regulate (and tax) CO2.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Weren't you and the other clowns down playing (if not outright denying) a decade of unprecendented melting in the first place?

What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?


No one's "into" pollution Libbie. But you Lib-Tards want to regulate (and tax) CO2.

Oh, so you and your fellow parrots were for all the proposed pollution reforms?

:palm: Give me a fucking break......the foolish tax credits were a bad move, a compromise that Gore opted for in his advocations....and your corporate bretheren are NOT exactly the most forth coming and compliant people in this matter. They just want to be left to business as usual.

See genius, you and the other idiots on this subject are so knee jerk in your defense of the corporate system that you contradict yourselves eventually.....as I previously pointed out.

[Cypress]

Obviously the flat earth fear mongering global warming idiots still have Cypress cheering them on.

... did you really expect the proponents of the fear mongering to come to the conclusion that the people whose data they relied on to justify their fear mongering were wrong?



So your contention is that the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee is in collusion with a vast global conspiracy of liberal climate scientists to manipulate data and defraud the public? Wow, interesting theory. Why hasn’t the U.S. National Academy of Sciences – the brightest scientific minds in the country – been able to penetrate this nefarious global conspiracy of liberal scientists that somehow, you, Southernman, Tinfoil and Meme have been able to deduce? That's really quite remarkable that you and Tinfoil have cracked the case, while NASA and the US Academy of Sciences have been totally punked and befuddled.

Bro', you got fooled into believing this climate gate nonsense because of some rightwing blogs and rightwing publications. Your fall-back position that the professionals charged with investigating are now lying isn’t worthy of serious consideration; i.e., you’ve invented a fake, faux-“scandal” that can’t be disproven because everyone’s lying about it….except for the rightwing blogs, of course.



Dr. Jones Cleared of Bogus and Laughable Rightwing Charges of Conspiracy and Data Manipulation

From a statement released by the House of Commons Science and Technology committee to the press:

“The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—“trick” and “hiding the decline”—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.”

Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.



Dr. Michael Mann, Penn State Univ., Cleared of Bogus and Laughable Rightwing Charges of Conspiracy and Data Manipulation:

‘Climategate’ inquiry shows scientist didn’t falsify data’
An academic inquiry into the so-called "climategate" email scandal has concluded that a well-known U.S. scientist did not directly or indirectly falsify data in his research.

While a perception has been created in the weeks after the CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not while at Penn State," said the inquiry report, published by the university on Wednesday.

The report concluded that one particular criticism about the researchers using a "trick" to create a graph showing rising temperatures, was actually referring to the use of an accepted scientific formula for producing an accurate graph.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2518632#ixzz0kSvY6TYq

[DamnYankee]

Oh, so you and your fellow parrots were for all the proposed pollution reforms?

:palm: Give me a fucking break......the foolish tax credits were a bad move, a compromise that Gore opted for in his advocations....and your corporate bretheren are NOT exactly the most forth coming and compliant people in this matter. They just want to be left to business as usual.

See genius, you and the other idiots on this subject are so knee jerk in your defense of the corporate system that you contradict yourselves eventually.....as I previously pointed out.

What proposed pollution reforms?

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Oh, so you and your fellow parrots were for all the proposed pollution reforms?

Give me a fucking break......the foolish tax credits were a bad move, a compromise that Gore opted for in his advocations....and your corporate bretheren are NOT exactly the most forth coming and compliant people in this matter. They just want to be left to business as usual.

See genius, you and the other idiots on this subject are so knee jerk in your defense of the corporate system that you contradict yourselves eventually.....as I previously pointed out.


What proposed pollution reforms?

:palm: I'm tired of doing your homework for you, Southie. You're not playing dumb.....and yet you argue with a willful ignorance that is apalling.

But hope springs eternal

http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Clean+Air+Act

[tinfoil]

:palm: Weren't you and the other clowns down playing (if not outright denying) a decade of unprecendented melting in the first place?

What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?


How many times does it take for you idiots to get it? I don't want to pay extra taxes to fight imaginary foes! WTF is so damn hard for you to understand about that? Now STFU and go buy some carbon credits, stupid warmer

[tinfoil]

So your contention is that the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee is in collusion with a vast global conspiracy of liberal climate scientists to manipulate data and defraud the public? Wow, interesting theory. Why hasn’t the U.S. National Academy of Sciences – the brightest scientific minds in the country – been able to penetrate this nefarious global conspiracy of liberal scientists that somehow, you, Southernman, Tinfoil and Meme have been able to deduce? That's really quite remarkable that you and Tinfoil have cracked the case, while NASA and the US Academy of Sciences have been totally punked and befuddled.

Bro', you got fooled into believing this climate gate nonsense because of some rightwing blogs and rightwing publications. Your fall-back position that the professionals charged with investigating are now lying isn’t worthy of serious consideration; i.e., you’ve invented a fake, faux-“scandal” that can’t be disproven because everyone’s lying about it….except for the rightwing blogs, of course.

post the science, mr warmer!!

You are an idiot

[tinfoil]

No one's "into" pollution Libbie. But you Lib-Tards want to regulate (and tax) CO2.


taichi is the eternal strawman supplier!


his view:
If you doubt CO2 drives the cimate, then you must believe humans don't cause any pollution nor damage the earth in any way.


what a retarded belief system. The guy believes his own strawmen are real!

[tinfoil]

More for the warmers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8595483.stm


Why don't we get honest reports in America?


The american media outlets have a fiancial interest in maintaining the scary scenarios meted out by governemnt. They love getting ready made content to frighten the masses into watching at 11PM

Which part of the business model do you warmers need help understanding?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8595483.stm

Climate science must be more open, say MPs
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at UEA
Professor Phil Jones' scientific reputation is "intact"

MPs investigating the climate change row at the UK's University of East Anglia (UEA) have demanded greater transparency from climate scientists.

The Commons Science and Technology Committee criticised UEA authorities for failing to respond to requests for data from climate change sceptics.

But it found no evidence Professor Phil Jones, whose e-mails were hacked and published online, had manipulated data.

It said his reputation, and that of his climate research unit, remained intact.

The e-mails were hacked from the university's computer network and were published on the internet just before the Copenhagen climate conference in December 2009.

FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME

More from Today programme

Climate sceptics claimed that the e-mails provided evidence that scientists at the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were hiding data and falsifying scientific evidence on global warming.

The committee said much of the data that critics claimed Prof Jones had hidden, was in fact already publicly available.

But they said Prof Jones had aroused understandable suspicion by blocking requests for data.

The MPs' report acknowledged that Prof Jones "must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew - or perceived - were motivated by a desire to seek to undermine his work".

The committee also said that the responsibility for data requests made under the Freedom of Information Act lay with UEA authorities, rather than with Prof Jones or the CRU.

FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME

More from Today programme

It said that university authorities should have supplied the data to those who requested it, referred them to where it could be found, or where appropriate, argued that the multiple requests were deliberately vexatious.

Instead, the MPs concluded, the UEA appeared to support a culture of "resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics".

The committee chairman, Phil Willis, described this as "reprehensible".

Climate science must be transparent and irreproachable, the committee said.

"When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right," the report stated.

The MPs have urged the Information Commissioner's Office to make a formal ruling as to whether the university's failure to disclose information was a breach of the law.

Former Chancellor Lord Lawson of Blaby, a critic of the way climate science is conducted, said it was important that further inquires into the matter were held in public.

He also said he had no sympathy for Prof Jones and the avalanche of FOI requests to which he was subjected.

"Any good scientist always is prepared to reveal his data and his methods, and he does not need to have it extracted by FOI requests. It was only the concealment by the scientist that led to the FOI Act requests," said the chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

'Common practice'

The committee was satisfied that, with regard to the sharing of data and methodologies, "Professor Jones's actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".

"It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers," its report said.


We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

But the committee added that this practice could be "problematic".

"We consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work, including raw data... and full methodological workings, including the computer codes."

Mr Willis said he hoped that science would emerge stronger from the controversy.

He said that if the data from government-funded research were made automatically available, unless there were a good reason to keep it confidential, "the winners would be scientists themselves".

The committee expressed regret that its inquiry had been cut short because of the end of the Parliamentary term.

But it said that according to the evidence it had received, Prof Jones's e-mails did not reveal scientific malpractice.

It pointed to controversial phrases used in the published e-mail correspondence, including the terms "trick" and "hide the decline".

The report stated: "We are content that the phrases were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

There should be a reputable scientist on the panel [who is] sceptical about man-made global warming
Graham Stringer MP

"Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Prof Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process.

"Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.

"Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the reputation of Professor Jones and the CRU remains intact.

"We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity."

Credibility call

UEA vice-chancellor Edward Acton said he was "delighted" by this conclusion.

"We are pleased too that [this report] has dispelled and rejected many of the myths over the matter, while accepting that we have been taken to task on a number of issues which we are determined to address."

The committee stressed that the two other independent reviews that were currently being carried out into the science at CRU must not overlap, in order to avoid undermining the review process.

FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME

More from Today programme

One dissenting member of the committee, Labour MP Graham Stringer, said he was unhappy that neither of the independent reviews had a climate sceptic member.

"There should be a reputable scientist on the panel [who is] sceptical about man-made global warming," he said.

"If we are trying to establish credibility this would be preferable."

But Dr Evan Harris, science spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, disagreed and said that scientific inquiries were, by their nature, sceptical.

Setting up oppositional positions within a committee tended to hinder its work, he said.



(hahhahahah Now that's rich! )
'Scientists are human'

Labour MP Doug Naysmith said he hoped the committee's report would prove to be a "corrective" to climate sceptic hysteria. "Before becoming an MP, I earned a living as a scientist," he said. "Scientists are human. Most scientists I know when off duty say things that wouldn't be said when writing a scientific paper. "E-mails are the modern method of chatting to colleagues around the world." The committee's report said it hoped future inquiries would be able to investigate further into the controversial issue of why Prof Jones had asked for e-mails to be deleted. Climate sceptics on the sceptic website Bishop Hill ridiculed the MPs' findings. One asked: "Is it April fools already?" Another commented: "No-one with half [a] brain cell will view this conclusion as anything other than a hasty and not very subtle establishment cover-up."

[tinfoil]

More for the warmers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8595483.stm


Why don't we get honest reports in America?


The american media outlets have a fiancial interest in maintaining the scary scenarios meted out by governemnt. They love getting ready made content to frighten the masses into watching at 11PM

Which part of the business model do you warmers need help understanding?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8595483.stm

Climate science must be more open, say MPs
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at UEA
Professor Phil Jones' scientific reputation is "intact"

MPs investigating the climate change row at the UK's University of East Anglia (UEA) have demanded greater transparency from climate scientists.

The Commons Science and Technology Committee criticised UEA authorities for failing to respond to requests for data from climate change sceptics.

But it found no evidence Professor Phil Jones, whose e-mails were hacked and published online, had manipulated data.

It said his reputation, and that of his climate research unit, remained intact.

The e-mails were hacked from the university's computer network and were published on the internet just before the Copenhagen climate conference in December 2009.

FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME

More from Today programme

Climate sceptics claimed that the e-mails provided evidence that scientists at the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were hiding data and falsifying scientific evidence on global warming.

The committee said much of the data that critics claimed Prof Jones had hidden, was in fact already publicly available.

But they said Prof Jones had aroused understandable suspicion by blocking requests for data.

The MPs' report acknowledged that Prof Jones "must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew - or perceived - were motivated by a desire to seek to undermine his work".

The committee also said that the responsibility for data requests made under the Freedom of Information Act lay with UEA authorities, rather than with Prof Jones or the CRU.

FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME

More from Today programme

It said that university authorities should have supplied the data to those who requested it, referred them to where it could be found, or where appropriate, argued that the multiple requests were deliberately vexatious.

Instead, the MPs concluded, the UEA appeared to support a culture of "resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics".

The committee chairman, Phil Willis, described this as "reprehensible".

Climate science must be transparent and irreproachable, the committee said.

"When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right," the report stated.

The MPs have urged the Information Commissioner's Office to make a formal ruling as to whether the university's failure to disclose information was a breach of the law.

Former Chancellor Lord Lawson of Blaby, a critic of the way climate science is conducted, said it was important that further inquires into the matter were held in public.

He also said he had no sympathy for Prof Jones and the avalanche of FOI requests to which he was subjected.

"Any good scientist always is prepared to reveal his data and his methods, and he does not need to have it extracted by FOI requests. It was only the concealment by the scientist that led to the FOI Act requests," said the chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

'Common practice'

The committee was satisfied that, with regard to the sharing of data and methodologies, "Professor Jones's actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".

"It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers," its report said.


We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

But the committee added that this practice could be "problematic".

"We consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work, including raw data... and full methodological workings, including the computer codes."

Mr Willis said he hoped that science would emerge stronger from the controversy.

He said that if the data from government-funded research were made automatically available, unless there were a good reason to keep it confidential, "the winners would be scientists themselves".

The committee expressed regret that its inquiry had been cut short because of the end of the Parliamentary term.

But it said that according to the evidence it had received, Prof Jones's e-mails did not reveal scientific malpractice.

It pointed to controversial phrases used in the published e-mail correspondence, including the terms "trick" and "hide the decline".

The report stated: "We are content that the phrases were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

There should be a reputable scientist on the panel [who is] sceptical about man-made global warming
Graham Stringer MP

"Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Prof Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process.

"Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.

"Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the reputation of Professor Jones and the CRU remains intact.

"We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity."

Credibility call

UEA vice-chancellor Edward Acton said he was "delighted" by this conclusion.

"We are pleased too that [this report] has dispelled and rejected many of the myths over the matter, while accepting that we have been taken to task on a number of issues which we are determined to address."

The committee stressed that the two other independent reviews that were currently being carried out into the science at CRU must not overlap, in order to avoid undermining the review process.

FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME

More from Today programme

One dissenting member of the committee, Labour MP Graham Stringer, said he was unhappy that neither of the independent reviews had a climate sceptic member.

"There should be a reputable scientist on the panel [who is] sceptical about man-made global warming," he said.

"If we are trying to establish credibility this would be preferable."

But Dr Evan Harris, science spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, disagreed and said that scientific inquiries were, by their nature, sceptical.

Setting up oppositional positions within a committee tended to hinder its work, he said.



(hahhahahah Now that's rich! )
'Scientists are human'

Labour MP Doug Naysmith said he hoped the committee's report would prove to be a "corrective" to climate sceptic hysteria. "Before becoming an MP, I earned a living as a scientist," he said. "Scientists are human. Most scientists I know when off duty say things that wouldn't be said when writing a scientific paper. "E-mails are the modern method of chatting to colleagues around the world." The committee's report said it hoped future inquiries would be able to investigate further into the controversial issue of why Prof Jones had asked for e-mails to be deleted. Climate sceptics on the sceptic website Bishop Hill ridiculed the MPs' findings. One asked: "Is it April fools already?" Another commented: "No-one with half [a] brain cell will view this conclusion as anything other than a hasty and not very subtle establishment cover-up."http://i39.tinypic.com/116s4qu.jpg

[tinfoil]

The climate scam is nothing new. We even had a childrens tale about the type of people who fall for it and propagate the lies

[DamnYankee]

:palm: I'm tired of doing your homework for you, Southie. You're not playing dumb.....and yet you argue with a willful ignorance that is apalling.

But hope springs eternal

http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Clean+Air+Act Bottom line it for me, Libbie. That link has about ten article summaries in it. What's your point?

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Weren't you and the other clowns down playing (if not outright denying) a decade of unprecendented melting in the first place?

What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.

.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?


How many times does it take for you idiots to get it? I don't want to pay extra taxes to fight imaginary foes! WTF is so damn hard for you to understand about that? Now STFU and go buy some carbon credits, stupid warmer

:palm: I "get" the fact that you're just another willfully ignorant neocon parrot who relies heavily on one or two talking points while denying and ignoring all else.

All your cut & paste are OP-Ed pieces and blogs that favor your position...yet you scurry like a roach at any information that contradicts your beliefs or references. Case in point with my response to your buddy Southie. http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Clean+Air+Act

Thing is, you're on record about bitching and moaning against the very idea of "global warming" and "climate change" BEFORE Gore's cop-out proposal....so spare us the faux whining about YOU paying carbon credit taxes...because it's the CORPORATIONS that would be doing so. And if they are passing the costs onto YOU and NOT their shareholders, that is further demonstration of how corrupt they are....but being a good little dupe, you'll just bend over and take while asking for more.

But like the good little neocon asswipe, you just IGNORE any logical challenge to your blatherings. Case in point....you deny unprecedented ice melt, then dance with glee when there's a sudden shift in the trend. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, GENIUS.

So I ask you again...What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.

[Taichiliberal]

taichi is the eternal strawman supplier!


his view:
If you doubt CO2 drives the cimate, then you must believe humans don't cause any pollution nor damage the earth in any way.


what a retarded belief system. The guy believes his own strawmen are real!

Ahhh, the lastest generic accusation from intellectually bankrupt neocon parrots..."strawman"....pity you dummies don't know how to accurately apply a word to a discussion.

Here stupid, learn something

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=631699&postcount=46

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I'm tired of doing your homework for you, Southie. You're not playing dumb.....and yet you argue with a willful ignorance that is apalling.

But hope springs eternal

http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Clean+Air+Act


Bottom line it for me, Libbie. That link has about ten article summaries in it. What's your point?

READ, YOU WILLFULLY IGNORANT NEOCON PARROT! READ IT CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY.....LEARN ABOUT WHAT YOU SO READILY CRITICIZE SO YOU KNOW WTF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

That's what I do with EVERY link you neocon yahoos post...which is why I can easily deconstruct your BS...or agree with any valid points you may make.


Like I said before Southie, I'm tired of doing your homework for you. If you can't muster the ability to scan through, analyze and carefully assess information that you want to debate on, then any discussion with you is akin to arguing with an idiot who's proud of his ignorance.

[DamnYankee]

READ, YOU WILLFULLY IGNORANT NEOCON PARROT! READ IT CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY.....LEARN ABOUT WHAT YOU SO READILY CRITICIZE SO YOU KNOW WTF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

That's what I do with EVERY link you neocon yahoos post...which is why I can easily deconstruct your BS...or agree with any valid points you may make.


Like I said before Southie, I'm tired of doing your homework for you. If you can't muster the ability to scan through, analyze and carefully assess information that you want to debate on, then any discussion with you is akin to arguing with an idiot who's proud of his ignorance.This is so typical of you Libbie. First you post a link that doesn't support your position (in fact you indicate that the linked material is your position) and you do exactly what you accuse me of, which in this case is not doing your homework.

Again, that link has about ten article summaries in it. What's your point?

[tinfoil]

.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?



:palm: I "get" the fact that you're just another willfully ignorant neocon parrot who relies heavily on one or two talking points while denying and ignoring all else.

All your cut & paste are OP-Ed pieces and blogs that favor your position...yet you scurry like a roach at any information that contradicts your beliefs or references. Case in point with my response to your buddy Southie. http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Clean+Air+Act

Thing is, you're on record about bitching and moaning against the very idea of "global warming" and "climate change" BEFORE Gore's cop-out proposal....so spare us the faux whining about YOU paying carbon credit taxes...because it's the CORPORATIONS that would be doing so. And if they are passing the costs onto YOU and NOT their shareholders, that is further demonstration of how corrupt they are....but being a good little dupe, you'll just bend over and take while asking for more.

But like the good little neocon asswipe, you just IGNORE any logical challenge to your blatherings. Case in point....you deny unprecedented ice melt, then dance with glee when there's a sudden shift in the trend. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, GENIUS.

So I ask you again...What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.

jesus christ ECON101! the fucking extra costs to business are GOING TO COST ME and everyone else!!!

[tinfoil]

Ahhh, the lastest generic accusation from intellectually bankrupt neocon parrots..."strawman"....pity you dummies don't know how to accurately apply a word to a discussion.

Here stupid, learn something

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=631699&postcount=46

Your strawman argument consists of conflating all persons who doubt CO2 as the driver of climate change with persons who say humans do not cause pollution.

You are an idiot

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
READ, YOU WILLFULLY IGNORANT NEOCON PARROT! READ IT CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY.....LEARN ABOUT WHAT YOU SO READILY CRITICIZE SO YOU KNOW WTF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

That's what I do with EVERY link you neocon yahoos post...which is why I can easily deconstruct your BS...or agree with any valid points you may make.


Like I said before Southie, I'm tired of doing your homework for you. If you can't muster the ability to scan through, analyze and carefully assess information that you want to debate on, then any discussion with you is akin to arguing with an idiot who's proud of his ignorance.


This is so typical of you Libbie. First you post a link that doesn't support your position (in fact you indicate that the linked material is your position) and you do exactly what you accuse me of, which in this case is not doing your homework.

:palm: How can you comment on something YOU ADMIT TO NOT HAVING READ? In the time it took you to compile this latest BS stall tactic, you could have scanned and read several articles. Do you realize how incredibly dense you appear to be?

Again, that link has about ten article summaries in it. What's your point?

READ the headings, choose the ones appropriate to the discussion at hand...and READ THEM. Then we can discuss FACTS. Or you can use the excuse of laziness and/or willfull ignorance and/or insipid stubborness to avoid an honest dicussion. Your choice.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Ahhh, the lastest generic accusation from intellectually bankrupt neocon parrots..."strawman"....pity you dummies don't know how to accurately apply a word to a discussion.

Here stupid, learn something

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...9&postcount=46


Your strawman argument consists of conflating all persons who doubt CO2 as the driver of climate change with persons who say humans do not cause pollution.

You are an idiot

Translation: the local crank with a tinfoil hat DARES not honestly address information that factually contradicts his beliefs and oft repeated corporate talking points, so he just parrots the same old BS....typical neocon cowardice.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?



I "get" the fact that you're just another willfully ignorant neocon parrot who relies heavily on one or two talking points while denying and ignoring all else.

All your cut & paste are OP-Ed pieces and blogs that favor your position...yet you scurry like a roach at any information that contradicts your beliefs or references. Case in point with my response to your buddy Southie. http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Clean+Air+Act

Thing is, you're on record about bitching and moaning against the very idea of "global warming" and "climate change" BEFORE Gore's cop-out proposal....so spare us the faux whining about YOU paying carbon credit taxes...because it's the CORPORATIONS that would be doing so. And if they are passing the costs onto YOU and NOT their shareholders, that is further demonstration of how corrupt they are....but being a good little dupe, you'll just bend over and take while asking for more.

But like the good little neocon asswipe, you just IGNORE any logical challenge to your blatherings. Case in point....you deny unprecedented ice melt, then dance with glee when there's a sudden shift in the trend. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, GENIUS.

So I ask you again...What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.


jesus christ ECON101! the fucking extra costs to business are GOING TO COST ME and everyone else!!!

Why should the the erroneous decisions of PRIVATE companies become the financial burden of the public? Why shouldn't the shareholders and investors foot the bill for BAD decisions that the public HAD NO SAY IN.

See stupid, THIS is the crux of the problem.....dumb toots like you scream about "socialism" and "fascism", yet happily bend over the chair for the coroporations that do you a disservice and then make YOU pay for it while they get YOU to defend them from gov't regulation.

:palm: Take off the tin hat....get an adult to explain it to you. And remember...Jesus wasn't about the gov't or corporations that pretend to be individual human beings, he was about the people.

[tinfoil]

Translation: the local crank with a tinfoil hat DARES not honestly address information that factually contradicts his beliefs and oft repeated corporate talking points, so he just parrots the same old BS....typical neocon cowardice.
please cite the specific talking points you're refering to. I've posted, in addition to my opinions, a vast array of links chronicling the subject for the last two years or more. I suggest you start-a-searchin' buddy. I've linked reputable science, critical analysis, and obvious errors, omissions and lies of the IPCC.


WTF are you talking about, asshole?

[tinfoil]

taichi is so stupid he thinks business passing on taxes into the cost of their products and services is corrupt!!

He believes business should keep prices the same any increase in costs for their service or product should be absorbed by shareholders in the form of reduced return on investment. Can you imagine this guy's grades in econ 101? LOL what a total idiot

[tinfoil]

But like the good little neocon asswipe, you just IGNORE any logical challenge to your blatherings. Case in point....you deny unprecedented ice melt, then dance with glee when there's a sudden shift in the trend. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, GENIUS.


Ice melt is not unprecedented. that's the problem ching chong. You are going by IPCC data. You better check the accuracy of anything the IPCC says BECAUSE THE IPCC DOESN'T FACT CHECK!!!!

[DamnYankee]

READ the headings, choose the ones appropriate to the discussion at hand...and READ THEM. Then we can discuss FACTS. Or you can use the excuse of laziness and/or willfull ignorance and/or insipid stubborness to avoid an honest dicussion. Your choice. Sorry Libbie, but in order to argue you must first present your argument. Don't expect me to guess at what it is.

(Note that, per usual, Libbie accuses The Southern Man of exactly what Libbie does himself: avoidance, stubbornness, laziness, and willful ignorance.)

[Taichiliberal]

please cite the specific talking points you're refering to. I've posted, in addition to my opinions, a vast array of links chronicling the subject for the last two years or more. I suggest you start-a-searchin' buddy. I've linked reputable science, critical analysis, and obvious errors, omissions and lies of the IPCC.


WTF are you talking about, asshole?

:palm: Stop acting like a wussy.....there's nothing "vast" about the Daily News link contents.....the 10 or less articles sited have clear headline definitions...YOU CAN CHOOSE WHAT YOU FEEL IS MOST PERTINENT TO THE DISCUSSION (all are relevent).

In the time it takes you to print your stall tactic bullshit, you could have read at least 3 articles....but instead, you take the cowards way out by waiting to claim MY OPINION is not up to snuff.

Get cracking, you wussy. READ the material, THEN we can have an honest discussion. Until you do this, you're just blowing mind farts.

[Taichiliberal]

Sorry Libbie, but in order to argue you must first present your argument. Don't expect me to guess at what it is.

(Note that, per usual, Libbie accuses The Southern Man of exactly what Libbie does himself: avoidance, stubbornness, laziness, and willful ignorance.)

When this asshole starts referring to himself in the 3rd person, folks...you KNOW he doesn't have a logical or rational leg to stand on.

Bottom line: as the chronology of the posts shows, these corporate ass kissers made a claim to which I provided evidence to the contrary. Cornered, they use any excuse NOT to actively engage in an honest debate by REFUSING to read ANY of the material sourced. Given the amount of time they have wasted stalling and bullshitting, they could have read EVERY article listed on the linked site several times over! They could have chosen any one of the articles that is pertinent to the current discussion for review and debate.

But as the record shows...these neocon clowns can't think independently...so unless there's a ready made response available for them, they avoid honest discussion like the plague.

I leave Southie to repeat his bullshit ad nauseum...typical of the intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot.

[Taichiliberal]

taichi is so stupid he thinks business passing on taxes into the cost of their products and services is corrupt!!

:palm: And can you quote me saying this, you lying SOS? I DARE you to produce the quote of me stating what you claim in no uncertain terms. If you can't, then once again you've demonstrated what a dishonest coward you are.

He believes business should keep prices the same any increase in costs for their service or product should be absorbed by shareholders in the form of reduced return on investment. Can you imagine this guy's grades in econ 101? LOL what a total idiot

It's amazing how you expand on your lie as if it's the truth......I suggest you losen up the tin foil hat. The chronology of the posts will always be your undoing.

[Taichiliberal]

But like the good little neocon asswipe, you just IGNORE any logical challenge to your blatherings. Case in point....you deny unprecedented ice melt, then dance with glee when there's a sudden shift in the trend. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, GENIUS.


Ice melt is not unprecedented. that's the problem ching chong. You are going by IPCC data. You better check the accuracy of anything the IPCC says BECAUSE THE IPCC DOESN'T FACT CHECK!!!!

:palm: As the chronology of the various posts and threads shows, the IPCC is NOT the only source of evidence regarding climate change. That is this numbskull's main problem...he just ignores any and all information that isn't part of the pro-corporate talking points.

Thing is the fool doesn't realize that while parrot squawking about the sudden change in the trend, he's automatically acknowledging an unprecedented rate of melting in that region. HE HAS NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY...but he'll scamble like a rat in a maze to find some blogger's supposition and conjecture that suits his needs.

Once again, the tin foil hat wearing crank lives up to his name.

[DamnYankee]

When this asshole starts referring to himself in the 3rd person, folks...you KNOW he doesn't have a logical or rational leg to stand on.

Bottom line: as the chronology of the posts shows, these corporate ass kissers made a claim to which I provided evidence to the contrary. Cornered, they use any excuse NOT to actively engage in an honest debate by REFUSING to read ANY of the material sourced. Given the amount of time they have wasted stalling and bullshitting, they could have read EVERY article listed on the linked site several times over! They could have chosen any one of the articles that is pertinent to the current discussion for review and debate.

But as the record shows...these neocon clowns can't think independently...so unless there's a ready made response available for them, they avoid honest discussion like the plague.

I leave Southie to repeat his bullshit ad nauseum...typical of the intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot.

Great, so what is your argument?

[tinfoil]

.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?



:palm: I "get" the fact that you're just another willfully ignorant neocon parrot who relies heavily on one or two talking points while denying and ignoring all else.

All your cut & paste are OP-Ed pieces and blogs that favor your position...yet you scurry like a roach at any information that contradicts your beliefs or references. Case in point with my response to your buddy Southie. http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Clean+Air+Act

Thing is, you're on record about bitching and moaning against the very idea of "global warming" and "climate change" BEFORE Gore's cop-out proposal....so spare us the faux whining about YOU paying carbon credit taxes...because it's the CORPORATIONS that would be doing so. And if they are passing the costs onto YOU and NOT their shareholders, that is further demonstration of how corrupt they are....but being a good little dupe, you'll just bend over and take while asking for more.

But like the good little neocon asswipe, you just IGNORE any logical challenge to your blatherings. Case in point....you deny unprecedented ice melt, then dance with glee when there's a sudden shift in the trend. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, GENIUS.

So I ask you again...What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.

Here's the quote where taichi says that if a business is passing costs onto customers they're corrupt.

He fricken wrote it in bold too!

[tinfoil]

The guy is an economic retard

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?



I "get" the fact that you're just another willfully ignorant neocon parrot who relies heavily on one or two talking points while denying and ignoring all else.

All your cut & paste are OP-Ed pieces and blogs that favor your position...yet you scurry like a roach at any information that contradicts your beliefs or references. Case in point with my response to your buddy Southie. http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Clean+Air+Act

Thing is, you're on record about bitching and moaning against the very idea of "global warming" and "climate change" BEFORE Gore's cop-out proposal....so spare us the faux whining about YOU paying carbon credit taxes...because it's the CORPORATIONS that would be doing so. And if they are passing the costs onto YOU and NOT their shareholders, that is further demonstration of how corrupt they are....but being a good little dupe, you'll just bend over and take while asking for more.

But like the good little neocon asswipe, you just IGNORE any logical challenge to your blatherings. Case in point....you deny unprecedented ice melt, then dance with glee when there's a sudden shift in the trend. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, GENIUS.

So I ask you again...What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.


Here's the quote where taichi says that if a business is passing costs onto customers they're corrupt.

He fricken wrote it in bold too!

:palm: Pay attention, mastermind, I'll use an example to paint a picture for you:

On Long Island, New York the now defunct Long Island Lighting Company (the power company) built the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, financed by shareholders and investors (no vote was put to the general public)....but it did NOT go on-line due to the inability to come up with a real emergency evacuation plan (plus numerous exposed faults and corruption involving various component constructions). In a last ditch effort, Shoreham fired up a low level test in a bid to insure it's operation....they failed.

AS A RESULT, THE COST OF THE CLEAN-UP AND VARIOUS RECONSTRUCTIONS TO SHOREHAM WERE PAST ON TO THE GENERAL TAXPAYERS, AND NOT THE RESPONSIBLITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND INVESTORS.

Look it up if you don't believe me.

THAT is what I'm talking about......the general public being made responsible for the PRIVATE financial screw-ups of companies. Capice? It's akin to the Wall St./bank bail outs that we're now suffering through.

[tinfoil]

You got owned by your own fucking words, dipshit

[tinfoil]

You cite a single example totally unrelated to global-warming-fighting-CO2-taxes, the subject of my post..

WTF does it have to do with the argument, dumbass?

[DamnYankee]

Libbie's so smart we're confused by him. :(

[NOVA]

Quote:
The Committee found that the "evidence patently fails to support" the claim that these words reveal a conspiracy to hide evidence that does not fit with global warming, and that CRU Director Professor Phil Jones has "no case to answer".

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I get it...its the old "if you don't believe me, just ask me", defense....

my kids used to try that bullshit on me when they were teenagers...
It didn't work then and it ain't gonna work now.

__________________

[tinfoil]

I just can't understand people like cypress shouting SCIENCE! as he ignores the blatant deeds revealed. They fucking replaced the proxy data with REAL TEMP READINGS

proxy data : error margins of 1 degree C
Real temps : error margins less than .5 degree C


the proxy derived temps from the tree rings since 1960 and beyond don't show the same trends that are expected and thus were said to diverge and need correction.

Can you imagine any other science where you can use a method for one portion of the representive data, and when the method no longer yields results that support the scientists' theory, THE SCIENTIST SIMPLY USES DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS IN PLACE OF THE PORTION OF DATA THAT DOESN'T FIT HIS THEORY


Please tell me of any other science in which this takes place?

[Taichiliberal]

You got owned by your own fucking words, dipshit

Translation: He's got nothing but sour grapes and empty allegations.

[Taichiliberal]

You cite a single example totally unrelated to global-warming-fighting-CO2-taxes, the subject of my post..

WTF does it have to do with the argument, dumbass?

:palm: Stop playing dumb or pay attention to what's recently transpired.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=632401&postcount=66

The discussion was about climate data that shows a sudden reversal of an unprecedented melting of an ice region....at one point you REFUSED to examine information I provided that contradicts certain assertions made by you and supported by your compadres. Then you made a false statement about my following point:

Thing is, you're on record about bitching and moaning against the very idea of "global warming" and "climate change" BEFORE Gore's cop-out proposal....so spare us the faux whining about YOU paying carbon credit taxes...because it's the CORPORATIONS that would be doing so. And if they are passing the costs onto YOU and NOT their shareholders, that is further demonstration of how corrupt they are....but being a good little dupe, you'll just bend over and take while asking for more.

You ranting and jeered that the underlined part of this excerpt wasn't true....so I gave you a perfect example that it was. So instead of conceding a point, you now try to pretend that the chronology of the posts doesn't exist in order to allege that I'm not making sense.

Stop acting like a freaking stubborn little kid....acknowledging facts that don't support your beliefs and contentions won't kill you. This is why I keep reminding you genius neocon parrots why the chronology of the posts is so important...so you won't make an ass of yourself trying to bluff around being proved wrong.

[NOVA]

You cite a single example totally unrelated to global-warming-fighting-CO2-taxes, the subject of my post..

WTF does it have to do with the argument, dumbass?

Are you surprised ? Its the same MO over and over....
Get pwned ...then change the subject and conveniently forget about getting pwned....

[DamnYankee]

I just can't understand people like cypress shouting SCIENCE! as he ignores the blatant deeds revealed. They fucking replaced the proxy data with REAL TEMP READINGS

proxy data : error margins of 1 degree C
Real temps : error margins less than .5 degree C


the proxy derived temps from the tree rings since 1960 and beyond don't show the same trends that are expected and thus were said to diverge and need correction.

Can you imagine any other science where you can use a method for one portion of the representive data, and when the method no longer yields results that support the scientists' theory, THE SCIENTIST SIMPLY USES DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS IN PLACE OF THE PORTION OF DATA THAT DOESN'T FIT HIS THEORY


Please tell me of any other science in which this takes place?

Political science.

[Taichiliberal]

Are you surprised ? Its the same MO over and over....
Get pwned ...then change the subject and conveniently forget about getting pwned....

Actually, I'm not surprised at your lack of comprehension coupled with your childish grudge holding over losing a simple discussion of facts and logic.

Here genius, PAY ATTENTION:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=632519&postcount=73