Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
The policies pushed by the AGW liars are the most elitist power grab attempt in human history.
Climate Change Fraud
- Thread starter Sammy Jankis
- Start date
The policies pushed by the AGW liars are the most elitist power grab attempt in human history.
If you were, however, suggesting that temps are higher than they have ever been (like a hockey stick would suggest) then you would see higher temps from the peak in 1998, not lower or equal.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Peak was 2005.
wiseones2cents
Verified User
Really? I dont know if you noticed the Trillions of dollars the US defeciet grew by, thanks to this bogus war on terror. AGW cant even come close.
Which policies are worse? The oil commanies that pollute and hide the evidence so they can make billions while damaging our lakes, streams, air, ground, ect... or the pro-enviornmentalists that want to direct funds so we have better quality air and thus healthier lungs? Hmmmmmmmm. Thats a tough one(note sarcasm.)
Its no secret that our lakes, rivers and streams are polluted. What makes you think our air isnt?
What policies dont you like? They say they want a cleaner enviornment. How is keeping polluters in check a power grab?
wiseones2cents
Verified User
I think I have just been insulted.
.lolSomebody had to have created all this. My intellect is suspect? I used logic in my reply and all you did was echo your first response.
Here is a link. Actually scroll down to the bottom and you will se a chart that shows that Co2 is the major cause.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
I think I have just been insulted.
Somebody had to have created all this. My intellect is suspect? I used logic in my reply and all you did was echo your first response.
Here is a link. Actually scroll down to the bottom and you will se a chart that shows that Co2 is the major cause.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html
Complexity doesn't prove a sentient designer.
Correlation isn't causality.
wiseones2cents
Verified User
There seems to be an energy in the universe and this energy carries information/instructions that allows all things to function. You may call it what you may, but it points to a higher intelligence, that is constantly feeding input into all things. Some people have taped into this information(on many levels) and that is why we have religion.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
It doesn't point to a higher intelligence. Microwaves and radiation aren't god either.
wiseones2cents
Verified User
Yes it does. There has to be a source. On a smaller scale the source is the Sun but not on the larger scale. We really dont know what the source is.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
is the sun a tiny god then? You maroon?
wiseones2cents
Verified User
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
You're an ignoramus.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...n-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters.
Manipulation of evidence:
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.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
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.
Suppression of evidence:
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.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……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….
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters.
Manipulation of evidence:
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.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
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.
Suppression of evidence:
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.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……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….
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
wiseones2cents
Verified User
And I am the unintellectual one?lol
And what do you believe in? That the world has existed forever without any one creating it? Or the big bang theory? And who created the opposing forces that created the big bang? They just happened to appear out of nowhere and be there? To create energy, you need energy. There always has to be at least one energy source. What is the source of energy in your opinion? Obviously you do not know. I like to call that source GOD.
You're a typical 'warmer'....completely brainwashed with no room for any other rational conclusions for your preconceived bias....
AGM has been exposed as a hoax....a hoax so brilliantly put together and so widespread that its taken over 30 years to be even partially exposed....scientists, government, and media make a powerful axis when they collude and conspire as one....
We witness that same thing with the Obama worship and liberal thinking, and the double standards imposed on any opposition right here in the US....
Religion is the product of fear of the unknown....not prophets and seers .....
Last edited:
Some call it nature and don't jump to conclusions that they have absolutely no way of proving or basis in fact....fantasy....
You're the modern day version of the neanderthal that cowered in fear and awe and sacrificed his neighbor to the lightening and thunder....
Believe what you will, its a free country and leave others to believe what they want .....
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ing-the-planet-will-be-the-real-disaster.html
Another good article on the topic
Another good article on the topic