The "Climate Gate" conspiracy theory: Game Over

[Cypress]

As predicted long ago by people with a rudimentary understanding of science, the “Climate Gate Conspiracy” finally merits is rightful place….aka, in the JPP.com Conspiracy Thread files.

A lot could be said here; the Climate scientists that were under “suspicion” have been thoroughly and completely exonerated (*see links below); two-time Bush voters, Tea Bag partiers, and Fox News fans have become inextricably ensconsed in an self-imposed alternate universe – an echo chamber free of facts and built on the foundations of half-truths, lies, and dubious “factoids” as published on Matt Drudge and the Sarah Palin facebook page; and that the lines of communication and consensus agreement between the real universe where normal people live and the universe of the rightwing echo chamber have been permanently severed.

In some of the more intellectual corners of the interwebs (which I typically avoid, preferring to troll internet porn – just kidding) a raging debate has been occurring on whether conservatives have reached “epistemic closure”; i.e., some fancy-pants philosophical psychobabble which I will defer to Bruce Bartlett to explain:

A Data Point on "Epistemic Closure"

Bruce Bartlett
Former Reagan Administration Undersecretary of the Treasury

There has been a bit of a debate going on in the blogosphere the last few days on whether conservatives have achieved "epistemic closure." (Links and commentary here.) I won't get into the deep philosophical meaning the term. What it seems to mean in terms of the current discussion is that conservatives live in a cocoon or echo chamber in which they only read conservative magazines like National Review and the Weekly Standard, only listen to conservative talk radio, only watch Fox News and only visit conservative web sites. It's a closed loop in which any opinions or facts that conflict with the conservative worldview are either avoided, ignored or automatically dismissed on the grounds that they must be liberal or come from liberals.

I believe this view of how conservatives think is correct and want to pass along the moment when I first realized it in 2004….(continued)……….

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1660/data-point-epistemic-closure

If you really want to see conservative “epistemic closure” in action, check out Lord Monckton – a major celebrity of the righting Climate Denialist jihad. The dude is now claiming that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Hilarious!

Yes, fellow denizens of the interwebs: a major star of the climate denier circuit not only clings with a death grip to a ridiculous and fantastical conspiracy theory of a global network of lying climate scientists; but also thinks the President of the United States is a fifth columnist who was secretly born in Kenya.

There you have it, folks. Conservative “epistemic closure” indeed, Mr. Bartlett…..well played, sir.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/lord_monckton_questioning_the.html




*”Climate Gate” Inquires:

http://www.realclimate.org/docs/387.pdf
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/Report+of+the+Science+Assessment+Panel
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climategate-conclusions/
http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

"We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.”

--Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to
examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit

 

[DamnYankee]

...the Climate scientists that were under “suspicion” have been thoroughly and completely exonerated ....

You sound like Al Gore: 'the debate is over'.

 

[cancel2 2022]

As predicted long ago by people with a rudimentary understanding of science, the “Climate Gate Conspiracy” finally merits is rightful place….aka, in the JPP.com Conspiracy Thread files.

A lot could be said here; the Climate scientists that were under “suspicion” have been thoroughly and completely exonerated (*see links below); two-time Bush voters, Tea Bag partiers, and Fox News fans have become inextricably ensconsed in an self-imposed alternate universe – an echo chamber free of facts and built on the foundations of half-truths, lies, and dubious “factoids” as published on Matt Drudge and the Sarah Palin facebook page; and that the lines of communication and consensus agreement between the real universe where normal people live and the universe of the rightwing echo chamber have been permanently severed.

In some of the more intellectual corners of the interwebs (which I typically avoid, preferring to troll internet porn – just kidding) a raging debate has been occurring on whether conservatives have reached “epistemic closure”; i.e., some fancy-pants philosophical psychobabble which I will defer to Bruce Bartlett to explain:



If you really want to see conservative “epistemic closure” in action, check out Lord Monckton – a major celebrity of the righting Climate Denialist jihad. The dude is now claiming that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Hilarious!

Yes, fellow denizens of the interwebs: a major star of the climate denier circuit not only clings with a death grip to a ridiculous and fantastical conspiracy theory of a global network of lying climate scientists; but also thinks the President of the United States is a fifth columnist who was secretly born in Kenya.

There you have it, folks. Conservative “epistemic closure” indeed, Mr. Bartlett…..well played, sir.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/lord_monckton_questioning_the.html




*”Climate Gate” Inquires:

http://www.realclimate.org/docs/387.pdf
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/Report+of+the+Science+Assessment+Panel
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climategate-conclusions/
http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

You need to read this from Climate Audit.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/18/laundering-oxburghs-interview/

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

As predicted before... fear mongering flat earth morons will continue to cling to the belief that they weren't 'lied' to by their beloved masters. Cypress continues to drive home the point of how much of a brain dead lemming he truly is... he continues posting these idiotic 'we did no wrong' pieces and continues to fail to address any of the following.....

1) No statistically significant warming in the past 15 years - phil jones

2) No evidence to support that we are warmer today than during the medieval period. The data that does exist supports the contrary... though not enough data for the globe to be conclusive.

3) Again... the data being 'lost' or deleted because it was 'too hard to store' is a sign of bad science.

4) Again... Cypress will continue to ignore all of the data and instead cling to his 'u guyz should stop reading right wing blogs' line of bullshit.

5) Again.... when the 'reports' as to what occurred are done by the very organizations/groups that have a vested interest in their global warming fear mongering, I would say only a completely brain dead moron would believe the very people who lied to us in the first place.

6) Again... Cypress will continue to ignore the benefit these governments, government agencies and groups funded by the BILLIONS of dollars have by being the global warming fear mongering that they are. The governments gain more control over lemmings like Cypress, the Government agencies get more control and the groups like East Anglia get billions to continue the myth of AGW.

7) Again, brain dead flat earth fear mongers like Cypress will ignore the facts. Instead he will champion the Fox's report of the Fox's activities in the hen house and proclaim that 'The FOX IS INNOCENT!!!'

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Tell us Cypress...

Why did the so called 'scientists' and your beloved 'government agencies' shut down so many weather stations throughout the world?

Why did the stations shut down just happen to be disproportionately furthest from the equator and/or higher altitudes?

Explain that to us Cypress, since you have a 'rudimentary' understanding of science (which must of course translate to.... 'I repeat what my masters tell me to say')

 

[Kamala Trump]

And we have just seen in real time how the population bifurcates.

We see that the entire statist military industrial complex of all nations are just going to keep going along with the plot to marketize the very right to use energy, with all the manipulative bubble and bust making to do their social engineering.

And we who lived through it now and can be honest see it's all based on bad data, but only a few us will even have the balls to discuss the truth 30 years from now, as we take belabored breaths from our state controlled oxygen tubes.

 

[tinfoil]

It's hard to believe cypress can't prove all our points wrong with links to scientifc studies.
The links at climate audit are all backed up with links to data, and the original study.

Climate audit performs the needed statistical analysis that the good scientists have called for--AND he does it for free. Steve is a hero to mankind, and I'm not kidding when I say that. I believe he should get an award of some sort some day. He uncovered the fraud though careful examination.

 

[Cypress]

Here we have two opposing sets of views. One claims climate change science is a fraud, perpetrated by lying liberal scientists….the other side doesn’t.

On the one hand, the Climate Denialist Jihad:

Tinfoil, Asshatzombie, Superfreak, Dixie, Damocles, Meme, Bravo, et al.
Status: Anonymous and Obscure Message Board Posters
Scientific Qualifications: None

On the other hand, the Nation’s most Brilliant Scientific Minds:

Massachusets Institute of Technology, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, NASA, NOAA, et al.:
Status: Scientific experts qualified to evaluate climate science.
Scientific Qualifications: Impeccable and unimpeachable.

The climate denialist Jihadists provide links to rightwing blogs, to British tabloids, or they don’t provide links at all and bray like donkeys and demand answers to “questions” that undoubtedly they did not come up with on their own… their “questions” are no doubt paraphrased from something they read on a partisan rightwing site.


In contrast, The Worlds most Brilliant Scientific Minds make these conclusions:

How do we know that the CO2 increase is caused by human activities?

The Massachusets Institute of Technology
Joint Program on Climate Change

Industry data provides detailed figures of fossil fuels used in various sectors. This data can be used to calculate the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by combustion of the fuels. The emissions are more than sufficient to explain the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 Careful analysis of the atmospheric CO2 data collected by Scripps and other organizations shows that CO2 is increasing at a rate that is about 44% slower than would be expected if all the CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels stayed in the air. The real puzzle is to explain where the missing 44% of the emissions have gone. The answer is that this "missing" CO2 is absorbed by both the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere. On average over the last 50 years the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere have continued to "mop up" this amount of CO2. Whether they will continue to do this as atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to increase is a critical question and the subject of intense international research.

Other evidence for a human cause: 1) There are no known natural sources of CO2 sufficient to account for the recent increase. 2) There are no known sinks of CO2 sufficient to have absorbed all the CO2 from fossil-fuel burning. 3) For more than 10,000 years prior to the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels were essentially constant, which shows that the recent increase is not natural. 4) The increase in CO2 has been accompanied by a decrease in O2 and by changes in the ratios of the isotopes of carbon in the CO2. The O2 and isotopes changes indicate that the CO2 increase was derived from the oxidation of old organic matter – consistent with burning fossil fuel. 5) The pattern of CO2 increase since 1958 has closely mirrored that of fossil-fuel burning.

Much of the relatively small climate variability over the last 1,000 years, but before industrialisation, can be explained by changes in solar output and occasional cooling due to major volcanic eruptions. Since industrialisation, CO2 has increased significantly. We now know that man-made CO2 is the likely cause of most of the warming over the last 50 years.

http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/topten.html

The climate denialist Jihadists cling like a drowning man to a piece of flotsam, and continue to blather that “Climate Gate” was perpetrated by lying liberal scientists bent on committing scientific fraud and deception of the public.

In contrast, qualified professional investigators came to the exact opposite conclusion as our hilarious band of Sherlock holmes climate denial dectectives:

“We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it,”

-The Independent Panel Charged with Investigating the CRU – April 2010.

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.

We therefore conclude that there is independent verification, through the use of other methodologies and other sources of data, of the results and conclusions of the Climate

-British House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee

P.S. LOL at "Climate Audit". A blog run by a dude with no qualifications, expertise, or his own legitimate research in climate.




"Climate Gate!"

 

[Kamala Trump]

Cypress is appealling to the logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". It's the main fallacy used by the estalishment in their "expertization" of all valid discourse.

Cypress. Fake data is fake data, no matter how many fascist nazi scientists they pay off to lie about it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

As predicted before... fear mongering flat earth morons will continue to cling to the belief that they weren't 'lied' to by their beloved masters. Cypress continues to drive home the point of how much of a brain dead lemming he truly is... he continues posting these idiotic 'we did no wrong' pieces and continues to fail to address any of the following.....

1) No statistically significant warming in the past 15 years - phil jones (yes, this is one of those unimpeachable experts the idiot Cypress keeps talking about)

2) No evidence to support that we are warmer today than during the medieval period. The data that does exist supports the contrary... though not enough data for the globe to be conclusive. (yes, this too was from Jones)

3) Again... the data being 'lost' or deleted because it was 'too hard to store' is a sign of bad science. (yes... Cypress continues to ignore this)

4) Again... Cypress will continue to ignore all of the data and instead cling to his 'u guyz should stop reading right wing blogs' line of bullshit.

5) Again.... when the 'reports' as to what occurred are done by the very organizations/groups that have a vested interest in their global warming fear mongering, I would say only a completely brain dead moron would believe the very people who lied to us in the first place.

6) Again... Cypress will continue to ignore the benefit these governments, government agencies and groups funded by the BILLIONS of dollars have by being the global warming fear mongering that they are. The governments gain more control over lemmings like Cypress, the Government agencies get more control and the groups like East Anglia get billions to continue the myth of AGW.

7) Again, brain dead flat earth fear mongers like Cypress will ignore the facts. Instead he will champion the Fox's report of the Fox's activities in the hen house and proclaim that 'The FOX IS INNOCENT!!!'

8) Why did the so called 'scientists' and your beloved 'government agencies' shut down so many weather stations throughout the world?

9) Why did the stations shut down just happen to be disproportionately furthest from the equator and/or higher altitudes?

Explain these to us Cypress, since you have a 'rudimentary' understanding of science (which must of course translate to.... 'I repeat what my masters tell me to say')

WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO RESPOND CYPRESS? OH THAT'S RIGHT... BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.

 

[Damocles]

Channeling Cypress:

Scientists who are paid to produce evidence of Global Warming have told me that they have done nothing wrong! They are unimpeachable! Their Data are right, because they said so!

Now, I'll proceed to ignore the fact that the data cannot be checked by anybody at all, because they were never stored, and start into the ad homs. It is always better to be on the attack than the defense.

/Channel...

 

[Cypress]

As predicted before... fear mongering flat earth morons will continue to cling to the belief that they weren't 'lied' to by their beloved masters. Cypress continues to drive home the point of how much of a brain dead lemming he truly is... he continues posting these idiotic 'we did no wrong' pieces and continues to fail to address any of the following.....

1) No statistically significant warming in the past 15 years - phil jones (yes, this is one of those unimpeachable experts the idiot Cypress keeps talking about)

2) No evidence to support that we are warmer today than during the medieval period. The data that does exist supports the contrary... though not enough data for the globe to be conclusive. (yes, this too was from Jones)

3) Again... the data being 'lost' or deleted because it was 'too hard to store' is a sign of bad science. (yes... Cypress continues to ignore this)

4) Again... Cypress will continue to ignore all of the data and instead cling to his 'u guyz should stop reading right wing blogs' line of bullshit.

5) Again.... when the 'reports' as to what occurred are done by the very organizations/groups that have a vested interest in their global warming fear mongering, I would say only a completely brain dead moron would believe the very people who lied to us in the first place.

6) Again... Cypress will continue to ignore the benefit these governments, government agencies and groups funded by the BILLIONS of dollars have by being the global warming fear mongering that they are. The governments gain more control over lemmings like Cypress, the Government agencies get more control and the groups like East Anglia get billions to continue the myth of AGW.

7) Again, brain dead flat earth fear mongers like Cypress will ignore the facts. Instead he will champion the Fox's report of the Fox's activities in the hen house and proclaim that 'The FOX IS INNOCENT!!!'

8) Why did the so called 'scientists' and your beloved 'government agencies' shut down so many weather stations throughout the world?

9) Why did the stations shut down just happen to be disproportionately furthest from the equator and/or higher altitudes?

Explain these to us Cypress, since you have a 'rudimentary' understanding of science (which must of course translate to.... 'I repeat what my masters tell me to say')

WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO RESPOND CYPRESS? OH THAT'S RIGHT... BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.

Here’s the problem. You were wrong about your climate gate conspiracy theory. And nothing you post about this topic can be trusted to be credible or accurate without a link to a credible scientific source. You, Dixie, Asshatzombie, and Tinfoil spent months yucking it up that CRU lied, manipulated and committed scientific fraud. Every credible professional investigation came to the exact opposite conclusion that you and Dixie did. .

So, just because you yell out a bunch of questions, please don’t expect me to accept the premise of your questions, unless you link me to the credible and recognized scientific source you got the information from. Just yelling out questions, without linking me up to doesn’t compel me to accept them as accurate, or to waste my time answering them. I nearly always provide links to reputable sources, since I’m not a climate scientist.

To put it simply, I know you didn’t come up with those questions yourself. I’m sure you transcribed them or paraphrased them from rightwing blogs or british tabloids. And I don't accept questions from rightwing blogs as worthy of my time. So link me up to your source that cites your alleged problems and questions as it relates to debunking the climate science that NASA and the US National Academy of Sciences has deemed to be reputable.





PS As for the Phil Jones stuff, I suggest you read the actual BBC interview he did. Because I’m pretty sure the stuff you are writing about Jones is from the UK Telegraph or from a rightwing blog.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here’s the problem. You were wrong about your climate gate conspiracy theory. And nothing you post about this topic can be trusted to be credible or accurate without a link to a credible scientific source. You, Dixie, Asshatzombie, and Tinfoil spent months yucking it up that CRU lied, manipulated and committed scientific fraud. Every credible professional investigation came to the exact opposite conclusion that you and Dixie did.

Funny how you continue to say I was 'wrong', yet you cannot come up with one single fucking answer to any of those questions. You continue to duck answering them, because you can't. Your masters haven't provided you with anything and thus you are lost.

"every credible professional investigation"???? Seriously... drink some more koolaid. Again... two investigations by the foxes about the foxes activities are hardly credible.

So, just because you yell out a bunch of questions, please don’t expect me to accept the premise of your questions, unless you link me to the credible and recognized scientific source you got the information from. Just yelling out questions, without linking me up to doesn’t compel me to accept them as accurate, or to waste my time answering them. I nearly always provide links to reputable sources, since I’m not a climate scientist.

Translation: "you are right... I can't answer any of these questions.[/quote]

To put it simply, I know you didn’t come up with those questions yourself. I’m sure you transcribed them or paraphrased them from rightwing blogs or british tabloids. And I don't accept questions from rightwing blogs as worthy of my time. So link me up to your source that cites your alleged problems and questions as it relates to debunking the climate science that NASA and the US National Academy of Sciences has deemed to be reputable.

Actually, once again you show that you don't know what you are talking about. I did indeed come up with all of those questions. Now, do try to answer them.

PS As for the Phil Jones stuff, I suggest you read the actual BBC interview he did. Because I’m pretty sure the stuff you are writing about Jones is from the UK Telegraph or from a rightwing blog.

Once again, I suggest you actually read the BBC interview he did. Because the quotes from Jones are from the BBC... no matter who else quoted the same interview.

We have pointed this out to you on numerous other threads and you continue to ignore it. Because it refutes your idiocy.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Channeling Cypress:

Scientists who are paid to produce evidence of Global Warming have told me that they have done nothing wrong! They are unimpeachable! Their Data are right, because they said so!

Now, I'll proceed to ignore the fact that the data cannot be checked by anybody at all, because they were never stored, and start into the ad homs. It is always better to be on the attack than the defense.

/Channel...

I heard a Radio report today that said the Iceland volcano has put more Co2 into the atmosphere in one week, then all of humanity has in the past year.

 

[tinfoil]

Funny how you continue to say I was 'wrong', yet you cannot come up with one single fucking answer to any of those questions. You continue to duck answering them, because you can't. Your masters haven't provided you with anything and thus you are lost.

"every credible professional investigation"???? Seriously... drink some more koolaid. Again... two investigations by the foxes about the foxes activities are hardly credible.



Translation: "you are right... I can't answer any of these questions.

Actually, once again you show that you don't know what you are talking about. I did indeed come up with all of those questions. Now, do try to answer them.




Once again, I suggest you actually read the BBC interview he did. Because the quotes from Jones are from the BBC... no matter who else quoted the same interview.

We have pointed this out to you on numerous other threads and you continue to ignore it. Because it refutes your idiocy.[/QUOTE]

LOL

Cypress is amusing me. What a total believer. Seriously, what kind of moron can't see the conflict of interest. Thankfully, the idiots like cypress are no longer growing in number. the climate cult has at least peaked, like the 1998 el nino. LOL

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Just for Cypress, since apparently he can't remember people posting the BBC interview with Phil Jones before.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

The following 'quotes' are the questions asked of Jones. The responses are HIS responses, not mine.... and remember... Jones and the CRU are unimpeachable. Note, I am not going to post every question in the article, so there IS more at the link.

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

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

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.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

 

[DamnYankee]

I heard a Radio report today that said the Iceland volcano has put more Co2 into the atmosphere in one week, then all of humanity has in the past year.

What a fucking ash hole.

 

[Cypress]

Yes, I'm glad you are so vigilant at reading all my posts and committing them to memory.

With regard to the BBC interview, I addressed this at length in another post. Clearly, you must have committed that post to memory, and my answers, and I refer you back to that post. I'm not going to post the same answers twice.

You still didn't give me a link to a credible scientific source for the rest of your assertions. Just yelling out questions, while providing no scientific link is not a reason for me to accept the premise of your questions. You were wrong on Iraq, and you were wrong on Climate Gate. You have a history of being dead wrong. Your assertions on these topics can't be trusted, unless you provide independent verification from reputable sources.

Now with regard to the topic of my thread, do you admit you were wrong about Climate Gate? That there was no fraud, conspiracy, or attempt to mislead the public?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yes, I'm glad you are so vigilant at reading all my posts and committing them to memory.

With regard to the BBC interview, I addressed this at length in another post. Clearly, you must have committed that post to memory, and my answers, and I refer you back to that post. I'm not going to post the same answers twice.

You still didn't give me a link to a credible scientific source for the rest of your assertions. Just yelling out questions, while providing no scientific link is not a reason for me to accept the premise of your questions. You were wrong on Iraq, and you were wrong on Climate Gate. You have a history of being dead wrong. Your assertions on these topics can't be trusted, unless you provide independent verification from reputable sources.

Now with regard to the topic of my thread, do you admit you were wrong about Climate Gate? That there was no fraud, conspiracy, or attempt to mislead the public?

You are so unbelievably full of shit. So now that you have your link provided to you on what Jones said, your answer is.... 'I am not going to answer because I think I answered these before, even though I don't remember you ever posting the BBC link before'???

As to the fraud... yes, I admit you are an idiot. The very fact that you refuse to address Jones comments about the FACT that there has been no significant warming in the past 15 years, shows that you are a complete hack.

No matter what source I provide, you will simply proclaim it not 'suitable'. I give you one of the LEAD SCIENTISTS on the issue and you ignore him. Suddenly Jones is not good enough for you?

I show you that there are three other periods that saw similar warming trends and yet you still want us to believe that this is something new and man made?

You proclaim the debate closed and that anyone disagreeing must be a climate 'deniar'... yet one of the lead Scientists states just the opposite.

It is your credibility that is shot on the topic Cypress.

No... there is fraud... by the IPCC. Including data that was unsubstantiated and non-scientific in the report is fraudulent.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/10/historical-station-distribution/

Shows the number of stations... data taken directly from GHCN

Due note the number of stations in Canada in particular.... from 1985 to 2005.