***The MSM Tries To Ignore Climategate... But Readers Bring Them Back To Reality!!***

Doesn't capture it, rather ridicules it. There's a difference.

They talk about here in Oregon as if it does not exist at all.

Gee, I wonder what it must be like to have shit for brains!

"Now as far as Earth, Antarctica is a land mass with ice on top of it, whereas the arctic circle is all iceberg. So, if all the ice in the arctic circle melts, shouldn't we be alright?
And as far as Antarctica is concerned, it's not so much as the ice melting as it is the ice falling from the land mass and into the ocean. Either way, I can't imagine sea levels rising if the ice that is currently in the ocean melts. Worse case scenario is the beach comes to me, so I never really was concerned about that."

1. Known that floating ice does not increase sea levels.
2. hence the target Antarctica and Greenland. All that melting ice IS raising sea levels according to the Fear Mongers
3. Fear mongers use every chance, melting Ice, Cities, countries under immediate threat of INNUNDATION>


Fact

Sea Levels are not rising

All those lines that trap the heat in and make you believe in global warming= for them to keep the warming up it would damage the earth and they do not want to cross that or would they?

HeeHee - I just took a poll on a VERY MSM radio station website - the question was:

Do you believe prominent scientists who are advocates of global warming theories are fudging the truth about man-made climate change?

Result?

Yes - 82.9%
No - 17.1%

The message is getting out - clearly!

Report from the Philippines:

The climate-change fraud
Written by John Mangun / Outside the Box
Wednesday, 25 November 2009 20:36


While it may be true that the Philippines is stuck in the middle of the South China Sea, you would think that at least one media outlet would choose to cover one of the biggest stories of the 21st century.

This past week, computer hackers or perhaps a “whistle-blower” insider released thousands of e-mail and other documents obtained from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England. The email and internal reports show that data used to support the idea of man-made global warming and climate was falsified, manipulated; and scientific data that went contrary to the climate-change theory was covered up and suppressed.

And while this story is breaking news around the world, certain political leaders in the Philippines are pushing for increased taxpayer funding of the Philippine Climate Change Act, a law based on a fraud. The US Congress is opening investigations about “ClimateGate” and English newspapers are calling it the greatest scandal in modern science.

And not a single newspaper here chooses to cover this story. So I will.

The CRU is widely recognized as a leading institution concerned with the study of climate change. It is the organization that supplied a good portion of the data and analysis used in various UN reports and, of course, Al Gore’s famous movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
[...]

There is lots more detailed stuff at: [link to businessmirror.com.ph]

Alreadybugged

I think that you know that two wrongs dont make a right, yet you posted this

"that the hierarchy of published and cited scientists should not be diluted by quacks.'

You know thats not scientific, you know that calling people quacks is not proof that they are quacks, you know that the only way to prove it is by scientific analysis.

The CRU is the primary repository of temperature data. So when the refer to the decline, to what do they refer. Why must they hide it.

Is conducting witch hunts scientific.

Is name calling scientific

You know its not.

You then attempt a cover your ass with other fields of climate data and research such as

c02 being a greenhouse gas
co2 levels rising.

well, it must be clear to you that if temperatures are not rising, and the global record is the largest collection of pure data that there is, that the above two surmises must also be fatally flawed. That is wrong, incorrect, indeed false.

Similarly, rising temps would be indicated by rising sea levels. Well fact is sea levels are not rising.

We know from their own writings that cru not only cooked the temperature but that their databases that they used for the coking are a mess.

oh but you say, they have 90% of it. Do you really not understand statistics. they promote a half a degree rise based on missing data of ten percent. work that all together and you get

noise

insignificant data and trends.

you cannot be exact, precise on one hand and then generalise on the other.

you just cannot claim, defacto, that increasing co2 increases global temperatures and then turn the other cheek, refer to climate change instead of global warming, that is simply fraud and deception.

you also do not address two significant and major factors in increasing co2 levels.

1. deforestation
2. volcanoes and the like.

The first we can something about, the second we cant. rRe the first, people that really care about the planet are getting off their asses and DOING something about it. They are planting tress, planting grass, looking at ways to increase algae in the sea.

another anti science troglodyke.

You may be right. The puzzle pieces are starting to fit. It was probably at least one of the reasons for chemtrails.

Alreadybugged

Still name calling

"another anti science troglodyke.'

I think that you are showing your real colours. You cannot face the truth.

A lynch pin of the global warming fraud squad ( that what they themselves admit that they are)is rising sea levels inundating Bangladesh.

Well thats clearly baloney as sea levels are not rising, so what is the cause of the problem.

1. Bangladesh, is in the main a low laying river delta.
2. It was protected from storm surges by outer banks and mangroves.
3. The controlled steady flow of sediment from the Himalayas slowly extended the land and with seasonal flooding built the banks.
4. However, deforestation has allowed massive soil erosion to take place and that has filled the river floors.
5. Dredging has undermined the stability of the banks.
6. The mangroves have been cut down for housing or fuel.
7. Result in heavy rains or storm surges the river, with reduced capacity due to sedimentation, bursts its banks and floods.
8. Study after study has shown the critical importance of mangrove in both protecting and stabilising low shores and as vital habitat for breeding sea fish.

That is the cause of the problem not rising sea level.

Thanks Snark and a Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

BTW, my young nephew has been brainwashed by the Jesuits (Jesuit HS) into global warming. I will forward your thread. Thanks again and God Bless.

He was referring to himself.

Jezus it looks like everybody's in on this...and they call the right wing "knuckles draggers". Well, they would be if they accepted this crap...I think its the knuckle draggers on the left they go for.

I have been facing off all evening. And I have a very keen sense of right and wrong. Righteous. Moral. Ethically pure. The question is, are you?

Ha Ha- They "cooked" the "warming" books

Precisely-Exactly
It's like Invasion of the Body Snatchers

Alreadybugged

"I have been facing off all evening. And I have a very keen sense of right and wrong. Righteous. Moral. Ethically pure. The question is, are you?'

All you need to do is read my posts, to know that i am as best i can be.

I know that your bubble has burst but you cannot keep saying your CRU guys are good scientists when they themselves have said that they are not.

This is simply termed 'wishful thinking'

But all is not lost, there are many real issues, many real and urgent beings to be done and achieved. Together, without the poison ivy, we can make this a planet to be proud of.

If you want to know about sea level, who do you refer too?

1. Climatologists
2. hydrographers, hydrologists, oceanographers and cartographers.

I think the second group. They have been professional bodies for hundreds of years, with very real economic and safety issues driving them on. They need to know water depths to make and build and operate safe ports, safe shipping channels and they have been driven since the 1960s to make evermore accurate surveys (physical not data) due to the growing size and numbers of ships.

They all agree, no rising sea level.

Sea water density 1025, vital so as not to overload and sink ships, no changes there either.

Any news agency not reporting this travesty at the The Hadley Climate Research Center is implicated as co-sonspirators, including ALL politicians not speaking up ( which includes almost ALL of them). This event has given us all a chance to clearly see who the "enemy" really is. Thank you for that. Obama is clearly "one of them".

Please tell us whether Geology Professor Ian Plimer is right or wrong in what he says in this article.

[link to pajamasmedia.com]

Here is some of it, please tell us if these are right or wrong.

1. In the geological past, there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six ice ages, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was higher than at present. It is clear that the colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas called carbon dioxide did not drive past climates. Carbon dioxide is plant food, not a pollutant.

2. In the 600-year long Roman Warming, it was 4ºC warmer than now. Sea level did not rise and ice sheets did not disappear. The Dark Ages followed, and starvation, disease, and depopulation occurred. The Medieval Warming followed the Dark Ages, and for 400 years it was 5ºC warmer. Sea level did not rise and the ice sheets remained. The Medieval Warming was followed by the Little Ice Age, which finished in 1850. It is absolutely no surprise that temperature increased after a cold period.

3. Unless I have missed something, I am not aware of heavy industry, coal-fired power stations, or SUVs in the 1,000 years of Roman and Medieval Warmings. These natural warmings are a dreadful nuisance for climate alarmists because they suggest that the warming since 1850 may be natural and may not be related to carbon dioxide emissions.


AlreadyBugged, please tell us whether you agree with Professor Ian Plimer on those points which he wrote. If you think he got it wrong, please explain where he went wrong.

Thanks in advance.

Did any of these scientist, when talking about ocean temperatures rising, take into consideration the ring of fire being very active? That we also have had many earth quakes in
the last few decades and new volcanoes building in the oceans.
We have had many volcanoes erupt too. I don't think they have,
this would effect the temperature of oceans and the cooler temperatures on land.

If he Gulf of Mexico has risen any you can't really tell down at the Mississippi coast

Geez, do a simple 'home grown' science experiment.

Water expands when it freezes. Take a glass of water and put a large chunk of ice in it. Mark the level of the water before it starts to melt. You will see that the water level is less than the mark after it melts.

I'm not saying that the tropical conveyor belt might not fail due to the lack of salinity in the fresh water. England could become a frozen wasteland, but coastal flooding due to the Arctic melting is just rubbish!

Anonymous Coward 826108
I think that you know that two wrongs dont make a right, yet you posted this, "that the hierarchy of published and cited scientists should not be diluted by quacks.'

That's right. The complete quote was "Scientists think, rightly or wrongly, that the hierarchy of published and cited scientists should not be diluted by quacks."

You know thats not scientific, you know that calling people quacks is not proof that they are quacks, you know that the only way to prove it is by scientific analysis.

Yes that is how science works. You call people quacks until they they are published, and the more cites you have the more funding you attract, the more research you can pursue, the more you publish, the more you get cited, etc.... Sorry to burst your bubble....

The CRU is the primary repository of temperature data. So when the refer to the decline, to what do they refer. Why must they hide it.

No, it analysis data from around the world. And compiles it using sound science. They have a body of respected scientists, They have a degree program, and are respected around the world.

Is conducting witch hunts scientific. Is name calling scientific. You know its not.

Well, there are rules to play by (publish in the hierarchy of prestigious reviews and journals), and it isnt easy. There isnt a witch hunt, it just seems the body of science seems to basically agree that excess manmade CO2 contributes to greenhouse warming. That much is sure. Those outside that cant seem to convince anyone with alternative theories. Now, there is plenty of other factors at play, so people can hypothesis and model the future of weather to go in any number of directions IMO, up down or sideways -- as long as they have sound methods using sound science (that's where using cites is important, sort of like lawyers using precedents to argue their position).

You then attempt a cover your ass with other fields of climate data and research such as: c02 being a greenhouse, gas co2 levels rising. Well, it must be clear to you that if temperatures are not rising, and the global record is the largest collection of pure data that there is, that the above two surmises must also be fatally flawed. That is wrong, incorrect, indeed false.

The models at CRU dont predict weather on a seasonal or annual basis, they plot existing trends from the past, and using known scientific theory, they forecast those trends into the future, with probabilities attached to each possible scenario. Maybe they will be wrong, maybe something unanticipated will overwhelm their predictions,,, but they arent wrong because the data is saying something different, or the science doesnt support what they are saying. And btw I dont know if you are just playing around, but CO2 is increasing in concentration, it is a greenhouse gas (by definition), and the greenhouse theory has predicted real world changes (increasing temp variation between the tropo and stratospheres). Maybe you can explain that temp difference another way. If not then you have to accept something is doing it, and the most obvious candidate is increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Similarly, rising temps would be indicated by rising sea levels. Well fact is sea levels are not rising. We know from their own writings that cru not only cooked the temperature but that their databases that they used for the coking are a mess.

They cooked nothing. That is a baseless allegation. Sorry. You are attempting to argue your point with me by slandering CRU and its studies. That isnt the way I approach that subject...

oh but you say, they have 90% of it. Do you really not understand statistics. they promote a half a degree rise based on missing data of ten percent. work that all together and you get noise, insignificant data and trends.

I said Harry the programmmer was able to reproduce, last I read, over 90% of previous published results. It was alleged that Harry couldnt reproduce the results, that he was cooking the data to fit a predetermined conclusion, and that the programs were useless. These are made by people who are echoing one or two others baseless erroneous analysis of Harrys notes. To confirm what I am saying all you need to do is read his notes yourself, and have some competency of his craft like I do, to understand this. So you see their predictions are not based on 10%of the data missing. I havent any idea how much clean data is used, actually, from the original datasets. Probably LESS than 90%, but if its distributed more or less evenly than that shouldnt matter. The trends are more or less accurate IMO and thus the subsequent predictions are plausible IMO.

you cannot be exact, precise on one hand and then generalise on the other. you just cannot claim, defacto, that increasing co2 increases global temperatures and then turn the other cheek, refer to climate change instead of global warming, that is simply fraud and deception.

I have said the science from wayy back associations CO2 with surface warming, and the modern measurements are unequivocal: CO2 manmade emissions are increasing in the atmosphere, and greenhouse theory has predicting measured verifiable temp variation between the toposphere and stratosphere. It doesnt take too much thought to see why the model predicts future trends will continue from past trends -- up -- since the model is based on all those assumptions.

you also do not address two significant and major factors in increasing co2 levels. 1. deforestation. 2. volcanoes and the like. The first we can something about, the second we cant. Re the first, people that really care about the planet are getting off their asses and DOING something about it. They are planting tress, planting grass, looking at ways to increase algae in the sea.

And I'll add that reflectivity from deforestation increases. Volcanoes add to atmospheric CO2 as well. And the oceans absorb it. And the oceans are more acidic, from increased absorbtion, etc... CRU isnt the only group of scientists studying the changes around the world. And so now we come to what we as people do about it. Good luck.

hello

Step right up:
You can now LITIGATE ACTS OF GOD


One thing people forget. If there was anything to this "warming" with it's supposed incidental sea level rise, New Orleans would not be allowed to repopulate for many reasons, one of which is a tremendous potential for litigation. I personally think that much of this has to do with now
being able to LITIGATE ACTS OF GOD. This is what the "poorer" nations plan to do to the "richer" nations, via UN,Al Gore and other traitor's sponsorship. Of course the industrialized nations have ruined their countries because of their excessive emission of carbon dioxide etc

Man the paid and volunteer GW Shills are out in force tonight.

Anyone debating them is taking the bait.

Oh I forgot to add..the emission of carbon dioxide, produces warming which in turn produces unpredictable, destructive weather patterns which means WE CAN NOW SUE THE UNITED STATES FOR A CLOUDY DAY.

Yes

Dont know the fellow. He could be right in his facts, but wrong in his conclusions. So could CRU. But from personal knowledge there were many past civilizations that were lost to the sea, or where the sea dropped and left ports high and dry. Mostly glaciation effects I would imagine. Could have been something else. However, I dont like the politically correct term that industrial age pollution spewing megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere is somehow "not pollution". How quaint, and obviously politically motivated...