The Russians have the most feminine, sensuous, luscious, shapely, loving and caring women on the planet. The Mongols did a great job in 13C when they force bred with Russian women. Thank you, Ghenghis, my homey.
"The documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists. But the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so broad and deep that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument "
D'oh!!!!
This pretty much sums it up: "The documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists. But the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so broad and deep that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument."
"But the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so broad and deep that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument."
That is the opinion of a hack New York Times writer. There is no broad and deep consensus on this, in fact it is quite the opposite.
"Consensus" is being promoted by Al Gore, who is not a scientist, he is the fat star of a crockumentary Inconvenient Truth, which has been thoroughly debunked.
Looks like I was a bit slow.
Ha! GW/CC is crap, and the truth is coming out now.
Ripped from today's headlines:
Der Spiegel Online:
"Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising"
you are all being duped!
by exxon mobill and there hacks. They are manufacturing this debate within the scientific community.
The thing is, global climate change doesn't mean it gets hotter every year. Here's a video on it. It's also the perfect example of why the "mainstream" media is a joke when it comes to scientific matters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khikoh3sJg8
I don't know why I bother (people just hate educating themselves), but here's a link to some videos that are pretty informative on global climate change:
New evidence shows that the theory of gravity (YES, IT IS a F'ING THEORY ALL YOU LEFT WING GODLESS @$$H073$!!!!!) is all a hoax drummed up by Newton partially just for kicks but then fueled by a bunch of LEFT WINGNUTS who just HATE humans.
WAKE UP WORLD!!!
Sir Lance-alot wrote:
But the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so broad and deep that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument
According to Andy Revkin, a Global Warming True Believer who writes for a socialist shitrag paper.
From Anthony Watts' web site, climate audit, wired, and others (google them if you want, there are too many links to post):
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
"From: Timo H‰meranta
To:
Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal
Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper..."
Note: John Daly is a global warming skeptic.
"Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low….
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
"From: P
To: “M
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
M,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on.
...
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
"……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”,even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…."
OK, I said that there were too many links to post, but here's a good start:
Guppy wrote:
The thing is, global climate change doesn't mean it gets hotter every year.
yeah, but "change" has happened throughout history (mostly before recorded history), and much more drastically than we're talking about now. Our frame of reference is so vanishingly small, that anyone freaking out about climate "change" over the last few decades should really have their heads checked.
if you want to recycle, that's great. And we can't use oil forever, so we need to figure out alternatives. But don't try to push excessively expensive bullshit green schemes on businesses when we have no idea how much difference it will make over time.
Sir Isaac Just Joking wrote:
New evidence shows that the theory of gravity...
your post (if you're being serious with your sarcasm) really only shows how climate change has become like a religion for people who enjoy the idea or benefit from it.
Comparing something that has to be observed over hundreds and thousands of years to draw any kind of conclusion about something that will continue to change until the sun dies out to a force we can all feel every day is quite a ridiculous stretch.
Look, the overwhelming majority of climatologists say Earth's warming is at least being significantly influenced by human activity. Most will admit they're not 100% sure, but science is never 100% sure about anything. Lack of absolute certainty should not paralyze policy. I'm going to listen to those who've dedicated their lives to researching this over assholes on letsrun who don't believe just because they don't want to. If this was an issue concerning your health you wouldn't hesitate in listening to experts on the matter, even if they were "only" 90% sure they had the right answer.
Let me get this straight. Somebody breaks into someone's computer, steals a bunch of stuff, leaks what they choose to leak and victims of this theft are the ones with the black eyes?
Who the hell stole this stuff and why? Wouldn't you like to see the private emails of the folks on the other side of this supposed debate?
Here's one:
Memo
From: Victor vD. ExxonMobil
To: Russian Hack Squad
Please hack into computers of British scientists and put it on a web site somewhere. We'll pay you $xxx for it.
they're debating over whether to respond to hacks and thereby to legitimize them and they're talking about how a spot of isolated, temporary, local, cold weather can't be explained by their theories yet, so you take it that the measured global warming and the co2 predictions are somehow made up? as for historical evidence of previous anthropogenic effects, see harper's on the little ice age from 1350 to 1800(?), where the population declines, and consequent reforestation of Europe, caused by the plague, significantly reduced c02 and thereby decreased temperatures.
Great, give us a link! I've asked several times in these forums for someone to provide some evidence that warming is anthropogenic. You are the first person who's ever attempted this. Most just spout the gibberish about consensus, which is meaningless when it comes to science.
Guppy wrote:
Look, the overwhelming majority of climatologists say Earth's warming is at least being significantly influenced by human activity.
that's fine, but what does "significantly" mean? How much certainty do they have about the level of significance?
There's no doubt that certain things humans do could impact the climate. but the climate has already fluctuated so drastically over time that it's hard to get worried about small trends observed over a few decades.
so the problem again is, that "climate change" has become more of a religion than a meaningful scientific movement. Those who believe ridicule all who don't, and use it to justify any business schemes or government funding they will benefit from. Or to try and shove through regulations that will tie the hands of business owners in different ways across competing economies.