RE: Climategate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


popeye1250 -> RE: Climategate (12/16/2009 10:13:40 AM)

Where's "DomKen" when you need him?




Moonhead -> RE: Climategate (12/16/2009 2:06:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Where's "DomKen" when you need him?

Screwing "SlaveBarbie"?




Politesub53 -> RE: Climategate (12/16/2009 3:42:41 PM)

Lord Monkton......The guy even Glen Beck caught lying, and John Bolton found to be extremist in his views.

Firm is this really meant to prove everyone wrong about climate change ? I mean really, is this the best you can offer as evidence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/30/lord-monckton-glenn-beck-copenhagen

"And then there was the humiliation of being fact-checked by Beck - who pointed out that Monckton had told two "pants-on-fire" lies in his dire prophesies of a world government takeover."




FirmhandKY -> RE: Climategate (12/16/2009 5:17:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Lord Monkton......The guy even Glen Beck caught lying, and John Bolton found to be extremist in his views.

Firm is this really meant to prove everyone wrong about climate change ? I mean really, is this the best you can offer as evidence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/30/lord-monckton-glenn-beck-copenhagen

"And then there was the humiliation of being fact-checked by Beck - who pointed out that Monckton had told two "pants-on-fire" lies in his dire prophesies of a world government takeover."


The article is an opinion piece, with really no factually semantic content.  The link to the video is invalid.

What, exactly are you trying to say?  Just that you don't like Monckton?  Or Beck?  Or Bolton?

And that means what, exactly?

Or are you simply trying to throw in irrelevant attempts to stray from the facts, and again delve into emotions to discredit the facts?

Would you mind citing any of the facts that he presents in this presentation, and show me where they are inaccurate?

Or, really more pertinent, how the majority of the facts he cites doesn't lead to the conclusions he gives?

Firm




Sanity -> RE: Climategate (12/16/2009 8:06:52 PM)

quote:

Copenhagen summit veering towards farce, warns Ed Miliband

Climate talks at least 18 hours behind schedule as world leaders set to arrive in Copenhagen

The climate change summit in Copenhagen was in jeopardy tonight with the complex negotiations falling far behind schedule as the climate secretary, Ed Miliband, warned of a "farce".

With just two days remaining, the inability to overcome disagreements about the shape of a deal to combat global warming led to hours of inaction today , while outside the negotiations police clashed with protesters who broke through a security cordon but failed in an attempt to storm the conference centre.

"We have made no progress" said a source close to the talks. "What people don't realise is that we are now not really ready for the leaders. These talks are now 18 hours late."

Full article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/16/copenhagen-summit-miliband-farce-warning




Sanity -> RE: Climategate (12/16/2009 8:09:48 PM)

quote:

Putting our economy in the hands of Chavez fans

[img]http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/hugo-chavez.jpg[/img]

These maniacs in Copenhagen are voting on your future:


President Chavez brought the house down.


When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.


When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.


But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.


Full article (with video) at: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/putting_our_economy_in_the_hands_of_chavez_fans




luckydawg -> RE: Climategate (12/16/2009 9:39:44 PM)

Sanity, thats the kind of stuff Panda was talking about...that they couldn,t do Online. That's why they all had to fly there. They could easyily have shared data, and negotiated online.




popeye1250 -> RE: Climategate (12/17/2009 12:10:56 AM)

What I'd like to know is just WHO is going to reimburse the U.S. and British Taxpayers for all the money that was "stolen" in this scam?
"Stolen e-mails" MY ASS! I want to see a lot of these bastards in prison and their property confiscated and sold to pay us all back.




FirmhandKY -> RE: Climategate (12/17/2009 5:01:31 AM)

FR:

Russia affected by Climategate

...

On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

***



Most information that points to data manipulation.

Firm




Mercnbeth -> RE: Climategate (12/17/2009 8:28:39 AM)

Contrary evidence be damned! Lost jobs and the current state of the economy be damned!

Hilliary has the US donating $100 Billion to a religion!

The planet may be saved after all, and it will only cost $100 billion.

Just as the Copenhagen climate summit appeared to be on the verge of unraveling, the United States Thursday announced its support of an annual $100 billion climate protection fund, the Associated Press reports.

"The US is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

China, the world's most polluted country, and India have reportedly been blocking the progress of negotiations in Copenhagen.


The US went to war no believing on the ground inspectors for WMD's. Will that same attitude prevail when China and India laugh at the 'inspectors' coming to validate their emissions reductions?

Here's another distinction regarding this religious belief and us heretics - there is nobody giving $100 Billion to those who don't believe in the religion of global warming and just want a job to pay for their 'home warming'. Sorry - the priorities have been set - without a private jet - you are in the way of progress. Unless of course you are a 'believer'; then you will rationalize how this crisis is real depite evidence that it is based on manipulated data.




mnottertail -> RE: Climategate (12/17/2009 8:41:10 AM)

yeah, the superfund to cleanup benevolent corporation toxins ran out of money long ago, let us lower taxes now, so that the folks that get corporate bonuses can get back to gifting money to this fun like they never used to, or anything else.

Ja, Merc, pragmatics must also consider the downsides, and overall I agree that alot of stuff off the mark is being caviled about here and elsewhere, but I am a clean air and water guy, (if you remember your outlook on the corps of engineers 'pork' for the waterways, and your subsequent post re engineers:NewOrleans (which I am still trying to resolve what appears to be opposite stances) since I use the shit alot, and am rather accustomed to retain that stuff in my lifestyle, in fact, I consider it a need, not a want.


So, pragmatically we should load up Iraq, today, bring everything home and send them the 100B.

Ron


Ron




Mercnbeth -> RE: Climategate (12/17/2009 9:24:21 AM)

quote:

Ja, Merc, pragmatics must also consider the downsides, and overall I agree that alot of stuff off the mark is being caviled about here and elsewhere, but I am a clean air and water guy, (if you remember your outlook on the corps of engineers 'pork' for the waterways, and your subsequent post re engineers:New Orleans (which I am still trying to resolve what appears to be opposite stances) since I use the shit alot, and am rather accustomed to retain that stuff in my lifestyle, in fact, I consider it a need, not a want


Ron - I'm guaranteed clean water and air when Hilliary's check clears for the $100 Billion? Where's that in the fine print? Where's the abdication to all current clean air/water policies if the religious donation isn't given?

Rationalizing the need for $100 Billion going to religious theory compares in your mind to years of neglect and sell serving political policies in New Orleans? Is that how weak the argument in favor of the $100 Billion pay out is?

You know, if any of the 'intellectuals' had to teach for a living and one of their students 'fudged' or 'cheated' on one test or experiment they would toss out the student, and the results. How is it that in this case - cheating and fudging are "exceptional examples taken out of context'? Why does this Administration, and you, consider a $100 Billion donation to an exposed, and yet to be vindicated cheater as a good thing; or better yet - the path to your need for "clean air and water"?




mnottertail -> RE: Climategate (12/17/2009 10:01:49 AM)

perhaps in that dry climate the dripping scarcasm of my post has evaporated by the time you read it.

I am for clean water and air.
I am for huge severe fines in any of the industries that pollute, even in retro, so we can clean up the pollution.
the 100B can go to the corps of engineers to pay for that waterway pork we talked about last year.

Ron





Mercnbeth -> RE: Climategate (12/17/2009 10:09:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
perhaps in that dry climate the dripping sarcasm of my post has evaporated by the time you read it.

I am for clean water and air.
I am for huge severe fines in any of the industries that pollute, even in retro, so we can clean up the pollution.
the 100B can go to the corps of engineers to pay for that waterway pork we talked about last year.
Ron


No I blame multi-tasking. I was on the phone with a client, dealing with cleaning people waiting for me to leave my home office, giving the pool guy his Christmas Bonus, telling beth what I needed her to handle this morning, and trying to leave; while being pissed at seeing $100 Billion commitment from the USA in this economy and the happy face of Hilliary announcing it on my Blomberg channel, going to a group of insulated college professors who should be grading papers instead of setting policy based upon date they would dispose of if coming from their students.

I'm surprised my reply made any sense at all!

I'll need to re-read your post to catch the drippings - sorry if my reply missed them or was out of context.




mnottertail -> RE: Climategate (12/17/2009 10:11:29 AM)

Hey, Happy Merry Jolly Ho Ho Ho to you and your householdings, I am not put out by it Merc, you know that, my I don't give a fuck just came back all tuned up and polished up from the repair shop.

Have a good time, hope you get out of there.

Ron





rulemylife -> RE: Climategate (12/17/2009 10:25:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

FR:

Russia affected by Climategate

...

On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

***



Most information that points to data manipulation.

Firm


And just yesterday I read right here on CM about how Russia was our enemy.

Can you say strange bedfellows?




FirmhandKY -> RE: Climategate (12/17/2009 11:17:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

And just yesterday I read right here on CM about how Russia was our enemy.

Can you say strange bedfellows?

Do you have a point, other than exercising a lame attempt at some kind of sarcastic humor?

I haven't said anything about Russia being "our enemy". 

And even if I did, how does that somehow discredit the report (which, we all know, was your actual intent)?

In fact, taking your snarky comment as fact, then if Russia is indeed our enemy, it makes it all the more likely that they would continue to support "AGW", doesn't it?

Firm




popeye1250 -> RE: Climategate (12/17/2009 11:20:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Contrary evidence be damned! Lost jobs and the current state of the economy be damned!

Hilliary has the US donating $100 Billion to a religion!

The planet may be saved after all, and it will only cost $100 billion.

Just as the Copenhagen climate summit appeared to be on the verge of unraveling, the United States Thursday announced its support of an annual $100 billion climate protection fund, the Associated Press reports.

"The US is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

China, the world's most polluted country, and India have reportedly been blocking the progress of negotiations in Copenhagen.


The US went to war no believing on the ground inspectors for WMD's. Will that same attitude prevail when China and India laugh at the 'inspectors' coming to validate their emissions reductions?

Here's another distinction regarding this religious belief and us heretics - there is nobody giving $100 Billion to those who don't believe in the religion of global warming and just want a job to pay for their 'home warming'. Sorry - the priorities have been set - without a private jet - you are in the way of progress. Unless of course you are a 'believer'; then you will rationalize how this crisis is real depite evidence that it is based on manipulated data.




Merc, *Excellent* posts!
You get an "A"! You should "multi-task" more often!




popeye1250 -> RE: Climategate (12/17/2009 11:32:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Contrary evidence be damned! Lost jobs and the current state of the economy be damned!

Hilliary has the US donating $100 Billion to a religion!

The planet may be saved after all, and it will only cost $100 billion.

Just as the Copenhagen climate summit appeared to be on the verge of unraveling, the United States Thursday announced its support of an annual $100 billion climate protection fund, the Associated Press reports.

"The US is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

China, the world's most polluted country, and India have reportedly been blocking the progress of negotiations in Copenhagen.


The US went to war no believing on the ground inspectors for WMD's. Will that same attitude prevail when China and India laugh at the 'inspectors' coming to validate their emissions reductions?

Here's another distinction regarding this religious belief and us heretics - there is nobody giving $100 Billion to those who don't believe in the religion of global warming and just want a job to pay for their 'home warming'. Sorry - the priorities have been set - without a private jet - you are in the way of progress. Unless of course you are a 'believer'; then you will rationalize how this crisis is real depite evidence that it is based on manipulated data.




Merc, *Excellent* posts!
You get an "A"! You should "multi-task" more often!


Hillary did this kind of stuff when that POS husband of hers was president too, touring all over Africa "pledging" the Taxpayer's money in "foreign aid."
She can say whatever she likes but it's the Congress who hold the purse strings.
Funny, the U.S. is broke but she thinks we can afford "$100B" for this fraud?
Has Obama told her again this week that she's not, "The President?"
"Global warming" is just another in a *long list* of things that I just don't want my govt. involved in!
We are at the point now where "our govt" is *stealing* our money!
My war cry is now, "NOT WITH MY TAXDOLLARS!"




rulemylife -> RE: Climategate (12/17/2009 11:38:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

And just yesterday I read right here on CM about how Russia was our enemy.

Can you say strange bedfellows?

Do you have a point, other than exercising a lame attempt at some kind of sarcastic humor?

I haven't said anything about Russia being "our enemy". 

And even if I did, how does that somehow discredit the report (which, we all know, was your actual intent)?

In fact, taking your snarky comment as fact, then if Russia is indeed our enemy, it makes it all the more likely that they would continue to support "AGW", doesn't it?

Firm



Considering they are one of the nations with the highest pollution rates and also one of the nations most opposed to any international regulation on pollutants I would have to say no.

But I find it interesting that you are in support of them when it suits your agenda.

Hence my "snarky" remark.

By the way, I do really find that term hilarious.




Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875