Stop it … stop saying Global Warming isn’t settled.
I am telling you folks, it’s a religion to these guys, Global Warming. The e-mails detailing how contrary opinions are being buried and data is being supressed, and added to “trick” the world. Forget that. It’s all about the religion. There are more here.
Here’s the video from last night’s Your World. Stuart Varney interviewing global warming acolyte Ed Begley Jr. He just can’t stand it. Confronted with the details of the global warming e-mails, he becomes like a child who’s just been told there is no … well you know. Stop it Stuart.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufr58ON689Y
Set aside the fact that Nature Magazine and National Geographic are hardly impartial in this debate, nor would they qualify as peer review, the number of scientists out there that have already called into question the hoax are too numerous to list here… so go here.
Or maybe this would help convince Ed.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R77JS5BYyTc
My chunk of video is just a portion. If you want to watch the whole Begley thing … head on over to Hot Air.
Hi everyone, new participant here. I've read many of the emails in the climategate mess and most of the names were unfamiliar to me. So I looked them all up. You can find them here: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/11/sena… Scroll down comment #20.
(I think its vain to link to ones own posts, but Jim has a 75-word limit).
PS – Jim, heard your program this am (Nov 25) it was terrific!
Welcome, John! I am going to plow through them as well, but I think we all have the gist of it.
A great blog that of Andrew Bolt of the Australian Herald Sun (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/). He has the pitiful response of Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_global_warming_conspiracy_damage_control#63879). Read it and laugh!
Begley loves to bandy about the term "peer reviewed literature", but can't seem to grasp the fact that these "scientists" were caught red handed "fixing" the peer review process. Additionally, an important part of the peer review process is the ability to analyze and reproduce the experiments that generate the date on which the literature is based. These "scientists" refused to release their data, and now we find that they have been fudging what little they did release.
Begley ought to go and watch some of his last "great" movie hits, like "Transylvania 6-5000" which was "peer reviewed" and rejected by moviegoers. If the guy can't cut it in his professed profession, why should we listen to him (or Gore) in a subject in which they have no expertise or credentials whatsoever.
The list that John F. above posted has "advocates" and "skeptics". Who has the list of the "there is no evidence"? I am open to hear that side too (and don't send me to the petition, which is politics).
When the "scientists" swing from "the coming global ice age" ~35 years ago to "global warming," relying upon severely cherry-picked subsets of data to support their claims, should they not be subject to extreme skepticism, if not derision?
When they chose to argue that "global warming" was science, they opted for a honest debate and serious review of the science, something they have sought to short-circuit, as evidenced by their e-mails.
aren't peer reviewed studies, written by professors and reviewed by other professors? Those who do, do. Those who can't teach.. And no I don't apologize to the professors that may be reading this. How about we listen to real scientists.
Sometimes those who "do", cheat. That is the case here. A scientist that fudges data is not a real scientist by anyone's definition.
To wit:
Frank J. Tipler, professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, on the true significance of<a title=" Climategate" href="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_warming_conspiracys_most_damning_emails/" rel="nofollow"> Climategate:
Western Washington University professor Don Easterbrook:
I've spent 4 decades studying global climate change and as a scientist I am appalled at (NYT Economist Paul) Krugman's cavalier shrugging off the Hadley email scandal as 'just the way scientists talk among themselves.' That's like saying it's alright for politicians to be corrupt because that's the way they are. Legitimate scientists do not doctor data, delete data they don't like, hide data they don't want seen, hijack the peer review process, personally attack other scientists whose views differ from theirs, send fraudulent data to the IPCC that is used to perpetuate the greatest hoax in the history science, provide false data to further legislation on climate change that will result in huge profits for corrupt lobbyists and politicians, and tell outright lies about scientific data.
I for one, am glad that the US Military is looking at contingencies in the event that the sea level will rise due to the maligned global warming.
Contingency planning is a beautiful thing. The military should have a plan for any eventuality, considering that sea levels have fluctuated hundreds of feet in the Earth's history. All without the help or hindrance of man. Why, in just the last interglacial period (we are near the end of one now), a mere 120K years ago, the sea levels were 15 – 18 FEET higher than they are now, and the CO2 was considerably higher (http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/lite/).
It's not whether the climate is warming – it is.
It's whether humans are a significant cause. I think not.
"Warmering" scientists have much to explain.
But some people have invested in warmering businesses hoping to get rich off government funding, which they intend to get flowing into these businesses by scaring everyone.
That's people like Al Gore. (I've heard Gore is busy working on another movie, tentatively titled "Ow! Is THAT ever inconvenient!")
These "scientists" themselves have a financial stake in this fraud. From one source:
"So far, the most interesting file I found in the "documents" directory is pdj_grant_since1990.xls which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected a staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.
This is the modern version of the Piltdown Man hoax. It took the scientific community nearly 30 years to concede that it was a fraud. Of course, they were actually permitted to examine the data…