“What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-CO)
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.
“It ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty-five year period.” - Al Gore.
“The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.” --Paul Johnson, historian
“They hate us, the humans, they consider us selfish and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them. I used to live in a similar world—called communism—and I know that it led to the worst environmental damage the world has ever experienced.” - President of the Czech Republic, Vaclac Klaus
One problem with the "independent report" - they used the SAME FLAWED DATASET that those cliaming MMGW exists used! The problem is this: the temperature data has been fundamentally modified to contain the warming, so if that data is analyzed later it will show warming!
The biggest scandal of all in all of this, is that the ORIGINAL, UNEDITED data has been lost, and they even admit it has been lost!!!!
The "independent research" was rigged from the start. They aren't very good scientists if they can't even establish this basic point of scientific research, that being to CHECK THE DATA. One of the big things to come out of "climategate" was the very fact the original UNedited data was lost.
"Climategate" was debunked, you dolt. Among others, an independent group in Berkeley, led by a MMGW denier, found the original claims of MMGW to be true. You are repeating old, disproven claims...political claims.
If you were man enough to post a link I'll bet it would be from a right wing blog.
http://berkeleyearth.org/ "This work has been organized under the auspices of the non-profit Novim Group, and is independent of the other three groups that do surface temperature analysis."
"The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project has drafted four scientific papers setting out the main conclusions of the study to date. The papers have been submitted for peer review and cover the following topics:
Statistical Methods
Urban Heat Island
Station Quality
Decadal Variations"
Got that? Peer review. Are right wing blogs peer reviewed? No. Because they are total crap. You might as well get your information from The View.
Despite potential biases in the data, methods of analysis can be used to reduce bias effects well enough to enable us to measure long-term Earth temperature changes. Data integrity is adequate. Based on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most
worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought."
^bold:
Those words are the congressional testimony of a climate change denier, Dr. Muller.
From the vid: "This Climategate is really a manufactured controversy." "We need to look at what is happening in the atmoshpere, not what's happening in the blogoshpere."
Yup. The science is in... it's done. Peer reviewed. Nothing left to debate. Everyone knows it.
The data - what a funny statement. When it comes to Global Warming, "the data" is pretty much what we're all debating. There is no one set of "data".
Surface data? Atmospheric data? At what altitude? Ocean data? At what depth? Historical data? Carbon ring data? Satellite data?
Come on guys, face it, there is no "one set of data". You want to show global warming? Collect data that support higher temperatures! It really is that easy when you're dealing with an entire planet!
And your use of the word "peer"... come one, you have to know there are multiple groups, aligned groups, and the word "peer" is nonsense.
The "Berkeley Earth Project"?!?! Are you fooking kidding me? Have YOU ever researched THAT bag of hammers? Son, ya gotta do better than that, it's like citing gaggette as a "source". I bet you believe the "Reverend" Al Sharpton (I sincerely hope this asswipe dies a slooow painfull death) because he's got a show on msnbc........Sad, no tragic, really.
Semper Fi!
-Rocky-
__________________
ROCKYMT
Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
"Climategate" was debunked, you dolt. Among others, an independent group in Berkeley, led by a MMGW denier, found the original claims of MMGW to be true. You are repeating old, disproven claims...political claims.
If you were man enough to post a link I'll bet it would be from a right wing blog.
Home|BerkeleyEarth.org "This work has been organized under the auspices of the non-profit Novim Group, and is independent of the other three groups that do surface temperature analysis."
"The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project has drafted four scientific papers setting out the main conclusions of the study to date. The papers have been submitted for peer review and cover the following topics:
Statistical Methods
Urban Heat Island
Station Quality
Decadal Variations"
Got that? Peer review. Are right wing blogs peer reviewed? No. Because they are total crap. You might as well get your information from The View.
Despite potential biases in the data, methods of analysis can be used to reduce bias effects well enough to enable us to measure long-term Earth temperature changes. Data integrity is adequate. Based on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most
worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought."
^bold:
Those words are the congressional testimony of a climate change denier, Dr. Muller.
From the vid: "This Climategate is really a manufactured controversy." "We need to look at what is happening in the atmoshpere, not what's happening in the blogoshpere."
Data does not lie. "Climategate" was bullshit.
Crap ?
Everytime you post something about MMGW that's what we get from YOU !
Guys, it's fun to debate and chronicle the failures in logic regarding the dope vaping turd burglar and the Bronx basement queen known as goggy. I don't spend hours digging data on the subject as no matter what is provided they will dance and prance around it.
Both of these twits exhibit the basic psychological traits of confirmation bias per psych 101 which is the tendency to seek out and trust information that confirms what they already think, believe, or want to believe. Then to discount any contrarian information that goes against their beliefs.
Now sit back and watch those two lemmings discount and deny their deviant human psychology as they dismiss confirmation bias as an unfounded and flawed medical diagnosis.
It's not crap, Old Fart. It's me posting actual conclusions reached by an independent, autonomous, peer reviewed study group, led by a climate change denier, with the conclusion that "climategate" was bogus, and you guys posting the usual hollow thought.
There is zero thirst for information here. I'm not impressed one bit by my time spent here.
For Danderthals Everywhere
Linear Mode
