Krugman: No 'Scientific Impropriety' in ClimateGate - 'Hide the Decline' an 'Effective Graphical Presentation'
For many years, conservatives have been claiming that Paul Krugman makes up economic data to support his political conclusions.
Proving the point, the New York Times columnist said Monday, "Nothing in the [ClimateGate email] correspondence suggested any kind of scientific impropriety," and in the truly damning message from Phil Jones, the former head of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, "it’s clear that he’s talking about making an effective graphical presentation, not about suppressing evidence":
Back in 2009 climate skeptics got hold of more than a thousand e-mails between researchers at the Climate Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia. Nothing in the correspondence suggested any kind of scientific impropriety; at most, we learned — I know this will shock you — that scientists are human beings, who occasionally say snide things about people they dislike.
But that didn’t stop the usual suspects from proclaiming that they had uncovered “Climategate,” a scientific scandal that somehow invalidates the vast array of evidence for man-made climate change. And this fake scandal gives an indication of what the Wisconsin G.O.P. presumably hopes to do to Mr. Cronon.
After all, if you go through a large number of messages looking for lines that can be made to sound bad, you’re bound to find a few. In fact, it’s surprising how few such lines the critics managed to find in the “Climategate” trove: much of the smear has focused on just one e-mail, in which a researcher talks about using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in a particular series. In context, it’s clear that he’s talking about making an effective graphical presentation, not about suppressing evidence. But the right wants a scandal, and won’t take no for an answer.
No scientific impropriety? Jones was just making an effective graphical presentation?
Well, as NewsBusters reported last February, Jones himself, in an interview with the BBC, admitted that he manipulated data.
Of course, given his background, it's not at all surprising Krugman wouldn't consider this a scientific impropriety. Former Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent in May 2005 said the Nobel Laureate "has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."
With that in mind, let's examine what Krugman now claims was just an "effective graphical presentation."
As Marc Sheppard wrote in December 2009, "[T]he decline Jones so urgently sought to hide was not one of measured temperatures at all, but rather figures infinitely more important to climate alarmists -- those determined by proxy reconstructions." He continued:
Jones was working on a cover chart for a forthcoming World Meteorological Organization report [PDF], "WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1990," when he wrote the e-mail. As the graph would incorporate one reconstruction of his own plus one each from Michael Mann and Keith Briffa, Jones was informing them that he had used the trick on Mann's series at the same 1980 cutoff as MBH98, but found it necessary to use 1960 as the cutoff on the Briffa series.
In February 2010, Jones admitted this to the BBC: "[It] was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were."
In simple terms, Briffa's tree-ring data showed a decline in temperatures between 1960 and 1999 that weather stations around the world disagreed with. So, Jones spliced into Briffa's data set the real "instrumental" numbers for that period thereby "hiding the decline."
This should raise eyebrows for a number of reasons. First, Jones and Company gave no notification to folks receiving this data -- including the Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change -- that Briffa's numbers included instrumental data.
But more importantly, as the tree-ring numbers deviated so demonstrably from the observed temperature data between 1960 and 1999, why should anyone believe they're accurate for any periods in the past that can't be confirmed with instrumentation?
The entire global warming myth depends on tree-ring data that was grossly errant for forty years in the last century. This makes the decline ClimateGate scientists were trying to hide FAR MORE serious than most people believe.
I guess we can now include Krugman on this list.
That folks care what this man has to say about anything is astounding.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
He looks like he's stoned ...
Submitted by OldJoe on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:15am.
or whacked out on something in that pic.
That's my favorite pic of the Krugster
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:53am.
LOL - He does look like he just burned through a Cheech & Chong fattie, or he downed half a bottle of Prozac.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Krugman again betrays his motives
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 4:14pm.
The CRU was enaged in scientific fraud. "Hiding the decline" in a graphic presentation used to illustrate data to decision-makers is deliberate and unethical, regardless what Krugman says.
There was far more than a single EMail and disparaging a peer at question. There was the destruction of raw data and the discrediting of scientists who had the audacity to actually critically review their work.
To dismiss the CRU Scandal as a misunderstanding of professional correspondence is to dismiss Watergate as nothing more than a burglary.
Krugman is not a scientist; he is an economist. And that raises another question regarding his Nobel Prize winning work -- Has he hidden data to make graphics look 'good?'
Normally I come here
Submitted by bsny on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:16am.
to provide some balance and point out conservative hypocrisy and idiocy. But I must say this - there is no bigger liberal weenie than Paul Krugman (perhaps Jonathan Alter wins second prize).
Whaaaaa????
Submitted by neighb on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:48am.
Who is Paul Krugman??? Jonathan Alter???
bsny---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 7:11pm.
while I agree Krugman is a liberal weenie, he is not nearly the weenie Anthony Weiner is.
Also, I cannot let stand your obvious bull excrement statement about coming to NB's to provide some balance by pointing out conservative hypocrisy and idiocy.
In the first place, it would be humanly impossible for a liberal putz like yourself to provide any type of "balance" because all you do is add to the liberal insanity put forth by ass munching liberal trolls.
You come here to live up to the letters in your username:
barf - spew - n - yodel
or was that:
bark - stew - n - yammer --?
MD
Hmmmm, mother nature says the
Submitted by Snappy on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:20am.
Hmmmm, mother nature says the temps did not increase. As we all know, however, man-made instruments provide far more reliable data than mother nature and her tree rings.
As far as Krugman goes, he is a buffoon who seems to constantly argue in the face of commen sense, rail against reason and discount obvious fact as fantasy. In other words, a NYT columnist.
"motherbelt's axiom"
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:22am.
Liberals know the truth. The facts are a conspiracy.
So far the only thing proven
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:24am.
So far the only thing proven on 'globull warming" or "climate change" is that, when discussed rationally, the only rational people at the table have PROVABLE SCIENTIFIC DATA on hand and presented coherently.
The other side of the table is busy screaming, throwing temper tantrums, and threatening the total destruction of the earth and the demise of Humankind. But never any 'data' that cannot be discounted and/or disproved by real world observations of every living person on the planet.
The only thing certain in the whole 'debate' is al-bores future wealth.
IF they can get enough poorly educated people (aka public indoctrination center attendees) to vote for the most corrput person in the race, America Loses and becomes just another footnote in the history books.
And, those 'history' books will be written the way the 'authors' want history to be learned and remembered.
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
Hey, they sound just like
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:38am.
The other side of the table is busy screaming, throwing temper tantrums, and threatening the total destruction of the earth and the demise of Humankind.
Libtards? Coincidence?
Krugman is a schill
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:27am.
His winning of the Nobell prize for economics was just as valid as Obama's winning the Nobel prize for peace.
Remember that the Nobel committee is made up primarily of very leftist/socialist leaning people. The prizes are awarded today as much on their societal/social views as they are based on scientific achievements.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Krugman has a point, sort of, sideways
Submitted by CO2Maker on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:29am.
Not actually a good point about Greenaholics, but a point about strategically reinterpreting data.
Gummint economists and financial forecasters have been "hiding the decline" for years. They've called it several names, such as "off-budget spending," "Social Security Trust Fund" (also known as a "lock box"), and—my favorite—"third rail of American politics" and assertions that fixing Social Security will lead to Granny's untimely death from overuse of dog-food casseroles.
Once again the question that has NEVER been answered
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:40am.
The earth has gone through seven ice ages. That's seven times the planet has transitioned from cold to hot and back. All that before man walked the earth and had opportunity to burn his first piece of coal.
So how is it that now any fluctuation is man made?
And the crickets begin to sing.
Oh and by the way, in that picture, Krugman looks like the pathetic moron that he is and has been hiding all these years.
Found! The 7th Stooge!
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:55am.
Pauly Joe has joined Moe, Larry, Curly, Shemp, Joe & Curly Joe as the 7th Stooge. Fortunately, all the other Stooges have passed, leaving Pauly Joe's future in doubt. Most reports say that he's already brain-dead.
The real lesson to be learned
Submitted by Harbour11 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:03am.
The pundits have lost focus on the real lesson of climate gate. They have focused on the “hide the decline” email, instead of the truly enlightening one which read:
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
This email gets to the root as to why the whole assertion that the Anthropogenic Global Warming debate is over is completely laughable. We as scientists do not even have the most rudimentary understanding of the multiple variables contributing to global climate. Our historical data is incomplete and imprecise, our current data is incomplete and flawed, and our ability to predict future changes in many of the variables is incompetent.
To illustrate my point; ask any proponent of AGW what percentage of the earth was covered by clouds in the year 1800? Now we can estimate that coverage today with the use of satellites, but how far back does that data set exist? 30-40 years at best. Or better yet, ask them in the global temperature equation, what percentage of influence does cloud cover have (0.08%, 5%)? If anyone really pushes to get these scientists as to the precision and understanding of the various data sets for the numerous variables, they have to admit that it’s limited and are forced to fall back on predictive modeling.
AGW cannot be scientifically proven or disproven because of our absolute lack of understanding of variables which go into its making. Climategate was nothing more than a group of prominent scientists attempting to salvage a predictive model which, like all of them, was fundamentally flawed.
not the final say
Submitted by spepper on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:11am.
Don't think Krugman has the final say as to the propriety or lack thereof, regarding the infamous "Climategate" emails--
"it’s clear that he’s talking about making an effective graphical presentation, not about suppressing evidence"
Um, how about BOTH? That's what I think-- and my opinion is just as valid as Mr. Krugman's, because in the end, we're just a coupla A-holes.......
Oh, right. Bad visual metaphor!
Submitted by CO2Maker on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:55am.
It's not a hockey stick, it's a darning needle. Or barbecue skewer. Or dowel.
As usual a couple of things
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:16am.
1.) He did not manipulate data and he did not admit to such things. Krugman is correct in stating that "hide the decline" was part of a graphical representation. If you look at the original graphs the different parts are clearly labeled.
2.) The discrepancy in instrumental data and data retrieved from these notorious Russian trees appears after 1960. Before that they are very much in sync. My guess is that the latter is the reason they still use it and haven't lost faith in it.
3.) It's complete baloney to claim that the whole theory rests on data from these tree rings. That was wrong one year ago when you wrote it and it is wrong now. There are a lot of other proxy series that show the same thing: Significant warming over the last century.
So how accurate are those other proxy series?
Submitted by Harbour11 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:35am.
As we all learned in 5th grade, the answer to any equation can only be precise as the least precise variable in that equation. How precise are those pre-1960 tree ring data sets? 5 degrees? 1.0 degree? 0.5 degree? 0.005 degree? If we are extrapolating predictive climate models out 100 years, a slight variation in the accuracy will cause large inaccuracies the further out we predict.
Let's go ahead and accept that there has been significant warming over the last century. Are you asserting that the other variables (solar radiation, oceanic currents, ice cover, cloud cover, volcanic emissions, water vapor, surface changes, non CO2 warming gas emissions, etc.) have been static over that period? Since they obviously have not, how can you determine what impact man-made CO2 had on that increase in the face of constant variations in the other variables? Why is the rise always attributed to CO2, and not a change in the cloud cover, or a the changes in the solar radiations levels?
End of an ice age.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 12:05pm.
Since we are technically still in the ending stages of the most recent ice age (there have been as many as 5 over the last 2.5B years) one of normal intelligence who has no political or financial ulterior motives (me) would admit that the Earth may be still warming. So?
The epitome of human arrogance and progressive ideology, i.e."man is god", is to think that we humans can affect global temperatures to our liking.
I was on a website yesterday
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 12:59pm.
I was on a website yesterday about volcanoes, and the research being done on them.
The final statement i read before I slammed the door on it was:
"All or the data we are gathering at this site may someday help us understand what causes volcanoes to erupt, and how to prevent them in the future."
Italics are mine......
Now, speaking of overbloated egos......
It's not just the 'glowbull werming' idiots that think they have God like powers and abilities.
Oddly enough, all these fools are on the liberal side of the equation.
"we're from the government, and we're here to help you." ---Or screw up your life so bad that you will regret ever making enough waves to attract our attention, damned trouble making Conservatives anyway!---
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
Joe Versus The Volcano Redux
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 6:17pm.
La Raza could reinstitute human sacrifices to the volcano gods. Shouldn't be difficult since Hollywood has kept the tradition alive, one way or another.
(Joe Versus The Volcano)
The trick to deceive the public
Submitted by dbo on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:10pm.
1.) He did not manipulate data and he did not admit to such things. Krugman is correct in stating that "hide the decline" was part of a graphical representation. If you look at the original graphs the different parts are clearly labeled.
Wrong. There are at least 4 different versions of the trick to hide the decline. The 1999 WMO graph and IPCC/Greenpeace TAR versions were not clearly referenced at all. The IPCC/Greenpeace AR4 version had a backhanded reference but only after Steve McIntyre complained in the first and second draft reviews. In addition Michael Mann said in 2004:
"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, "grafted the thermometer record onto" any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum."
source
To paraphrase BJ Clinton, it probably depends on your definition of "hide" is.
2.) The discrepancy in instrumental data and data retrieved from these notorious Russian trees appears after 1960. Before that they are very much in sync. My guess is that the latter is the reason they still use it and haven't lost faith in it.
Strike 2. Not only are they not in sync before 1960 but the trick to hide the decline also happened pre-1550.
3.) It's complete baloney to claim that the whole theory rests on data from these tree rings. That was wrong one year ago when you wrote it and it is wrong now. There are a lot of other proxy series that show the same thing: Significant warming over the last century.
Perfect trifecta. The whole reason for the various hockey stick studies and their bogus tree rings was to prove that 20th century warming was unusual. They had to "find a way to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." If there are "a lot of other proxy series that show the same thing" why do they continue to use tree rings and their statistical gimmicks?
Crock trog.More hockey stick tricks
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 2:06pm.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/23/13321/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/steve-mcintyre-uncovers-another-trick/#more-36551
You Didn't Build That.
More global whining ...
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:28am.
Yes, yes, yes!
How many times must we go over the facts for the truth to make it's way into the agenda-driven media.
An "effective graphical presentation" is BOGUS when it presents as fact something which is not true, or omits anything which contradicts its assertions.
Mann substituted one form of data for another he had been using in mid-stream. A researcher CANNOT do that and not be laughed at by his/her peers!
Is Krugman so ignorant he doesn't know that, or is he pretending he doesn't?
Most propaganda, by Krugman's intrerpretation, would simply be effective presentations of any particular point of view regardless of it's veracity.
So if Bush knew that Sadaam
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:28am.
So if Bush knew that Sadaam had no weapons of mass destruction and hung his entire public campaign against Iraq upon the 'fact' that Sadaam had such WMDs (which he didn't liberals, this is just for purposes of argument), would Krugman's finding out that Bush knew that such public campaign was a lie, result in Krugman's excusing it because it was 'effective'? Somehow I doubt that would be the case.
NYT news report on Krugman:
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:56am.
Nobel prize winning professor Paul Krugman released his latest "effective graphical presentation" of the economy. It shows that unemployment has declined to 2.5% and the government is now running massive budget surpluses proving that Obama's high levels of spending (recommended by Krugman) on shovel-ready jobs is economically and politically correct.
More Krugman graphics @Comrade Jim
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:58pm.
Krugman just released more "effective graphical presentations" showing the Pittsburgh Steelers won the Superbowl, the Democrats actually kept the House, Wisconsin Union members were assaulted by angry pitchfork-wielding TEA Party grannies, and the New York Times circuation is up.
The three ways to
Submitted by danbo on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 3:26pm.
The three ways to lie......
Telling an untruth
Not telling all the truth
Statistics
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
...the Nobel Laureate "has
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 12:00pm.
...the Nobel Laureate "has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."
Krugman is no different than any other BS propaganda pusher. He only sees what he wants to see. If it doesn't fit, it doesn't exist.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Intellectually dishonest.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 12:06pm.
= Krugman.
Like nearly everyting that
Submitted by jdhawk on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 12:24pm.
Like nearly everyting that spews from crapman, file this under, "say the lie enough times and people will start to believe it."
Sorry, crapman, there is too much riding on this to get anyone to believe that, "hide the decline," wasn't a bold faced lie from a rat basta*d that should have been ostracized from the scientific community years ago and fired from his job.
Two "declines" were hidden.
Submitted by taznar on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:06pm.
Thanks to the tireless work of Steve McIntyre at climateaudit.org, its also been found that a second "decline" had been hidden. The pre-1550 data was also "hidden". Taken with what was known previously, this casts even more doubt on the accuracy of the tree ring data. McIntyre's take on the second "hide the decline" is still at the top of his web page for those who are interested.
No, no...
Submitted by johnsonl on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:38pm.
it's OK to lie! We're liberals!!
He musta missed this...
Submitted by Army Brat on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 2:02pm.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-p...
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.
Anthony Watts describes it thus:
This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.
It’s so utterly damning that I’m going to run it in full without further comment. (H/T GWPF, Richard Brearley).
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
Does Krugman have a least one
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 2:07pm.
Does Krugman have a least one honest bone in his body?
Okay, okay...rhetorical question...I know...
Not even the malleus, stapes, and incus bones.
liars
Submitted by m1xram on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 6:12pm.
Liars never lie if it fits their agenda. Is that in "Rules for Radicals"? It should be.
The opposite of Left is Freedom.
Krugtard please explain how 2
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 3:50pm.
Krugtard please explain how 2 Billion for Brazil's oil industry is good but bad for the US oil industry. Just another moron serving teleprompter messiah.
Put 20 lbs on George Clooney
Submitted by MightyMouth on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 5:07pm.
Put 20 lbs on George Clooney and you'll have a slightly loonier Krugman.
not fake
Submitted by m1xram on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 6:06pm.
So the faked data wasn't faked. Oh OK. That clears up everything.
The opposite of Left is Freedom.
Abu Grahib
Submitted by Slyrr on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 6:40pm.
One need only look at the Bush years to realize how heavily the media are involved in covering up the lies and deceit of the Democrat party, along with every one of their pet issues like the false doctrine of 'global warming'.
The media ballyhooed the Abu Graib scandal and laid it at the feet of Bush and the Republicans as examples of their 'barbarity' and 'torture'.
But now with Obama in charge, the news of civilian deaths in Afghanistan has all but been ignored by the same media who replayed every photo from Abu Graib every day for months, pounding a relentless drumbeat of blame on Bush, Rove, et. al.
I pray for our troops, and among those prayers is a prayer that they will conduct themselves with honor, and not be savage or brutal. That said, I do not condone any murder they may have done, and any troops guilty of murder should be punished. But I do not look on it as an indictment of the war against terror, or in Afghanistan specifically. Nor do I even blame Obama. This is war - and in war, soldiers are under orders to kill people and break things. In the process of doing so, things like this can happen. When they do happen, it should be noted and the guilty ones punished. It does NOT mean that we should quit the war and walk away.
But if the media is to be consistent, then they must hammer Obama with the same level of rancor, bitterness and hate that they used to savage Bush.
I do not expect them to do so. They are in Obama's pocket. Bought and paid for. They're his bond-servants - his slaves. And Obama's media slaves must cover up for and protect their master.
In any war there will be
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:28pm.
In any war there will be civilian casualties because it's unavoidable.
Wars are not fought in open fields in which all civilians are removed far beyond the range of the projectiles and shrapnel.
Wars are fought near inhabited areas where it is always possible to mistake a movement, in the heat of battle, to be mistaken for a hostile person.
The current "War on terror" is fought in densely populated areas because that is the filed of choice of our enemies specifically because of 'civilian casualties' that can be charged against OUR TROOPS.
Any soldier that has found an innocent person behind the bush has regretted his instinctive action until the day he dies.
The enemy ALWAYS knows that the way to defeat the United State, Britain, Australia, etc, is to parade dead women and children and loudly proclaim it was OUR TROOPS that murdered them, when in fact they were murdered for propaganda purposes by their own people.
And everytime the 'news media' proclaims OUR TROOPS to be "baby killers" and "cold hearted killers of innocent civilians", keep in mind that it is the media intentionally "Giving aid and comfort to the enemy" during a time of war."
And even more to the point, it is not "the media" it is the PEOPLE IN THE MEDIA that are committing Treason against the United States during a time of war.
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
Climate change deniers have long lost the scientific battle.
Submitted by Giygas on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 7:48pm.
The right wing's preoccupation with climategate never ceases to entertain me. This obsession with climategate is the final bastion for the denialists, as all other less spurious attacks on the science have failed. Typically, when one side of an argument cannot prove their preconception on scientific grounds, they usually resort to rhetoric and conspiracy theories that sound attractive and convincing but have no basis in real life. The climategate email hacking story has been dissected and redissected by seven definitive investigations, and yet deniers embrace the story as the final nail in the coffin of all things related to global warming.
These are the independent inquiries into climategate:
"February 2010. the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field." http://theprojectonclimatescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Finding...
March 2010. UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HC387-IUEAFinalEmb...
April 2010. University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP
June 2010. Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
July 2010. University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt".
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
September 2010. UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf
In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data"."
I hope you have a PayPal account, Gasman,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 7:57pm.
b/c you now owe NB $15.79 for frivolous and excessive use of bandwidth in a lame defense of a proven hoax.
Global warming is not hoax.
Submitted by Giygas on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 9:44pm.
Global warming is not hoax. The concern over the greenhouse gas emissions is the fact that carbon dioxide is a strong absorber of infrared radiation in the 8-18 micrometer band. And if its concentration increases in the atmosphere, the heat will be trapped and the temperature will increase.
Here are links to some videos that present the evidence for anthropogenic global warming for those who are new to the topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0&feature=channel_video_title
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02EpAMm8rfo&feature=channel_video_title
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas
New to the topic?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 9:53pm.
Giggles, in 3rd grade science class we learned that plants absolutely gorge themselves on Carbon Dioxide (that's CO2, the same chemical you're now condemning as a damnable blight on the World)
Happy to have helped you overcome your ignorance!
Tomorrow we'll investigate the subtle difference between "combustible" and "incombustible".
No climatologist denies the
Submitted by Giygas on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 10:38pm.
No climatologist denies the plants' need for carbon dioxide. In fact, more carbon dioxide in the atomsphere would enhance agriculture productivity, assuming that all other variables are constant. The focus of the concern is the carbon dioxide molecule's affinity for infrared radiation. Infrared radiation just happens to be the wavelength band of the electromagnetic spectrum by which the planet radiates back out to space to balance the incoming energy from the sun. So, if the CO2 concentration increases, a larger portion of the infrared radiation would be trapped and the atmosphere would be obliged by the laws of physics to warm. The Physics of this have been known since 1859.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/
In fact, anthropogenic global warming was actually predicted in 1896 before it became a reality.
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Giygas, heres your science pal algore
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:02pm.
Gore claimed: “ These warmer air masses ( which Gore claims result from human carbon emissions that create atmospheric CO2 ) act like a sponge to moisture and soak it up until they hit a patch of cold air.”
HERE'S THE SCIENCE
From a meteorologist’s perspective, nothing is worse than to see atmospheric science trashed by the likes of Al Gore, who is a self proclaimed expert in this area, but has had no formal training from any accredited university and constantly makes incorrect and un-provable assertions about “human caused” climate change.
You Didn't Build That.
The accuracy of oafs like Al
Submitted by Giygas on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:28pm.
The accuracy of oafs like Al Gore is moot, because he is not a scientist. Our knowledge of the climate comes from a century's worth of evidence compiled by several thousands of scientists from various scientific disciplines from all of over the world. I've never been a big fan of Al Gore, in large part, because of his misleading tendency to exaggerate the seriousness of global warming instead of sticking to properly published research. And I'm not that inclined to showing his documentary in schools.
Real science does show that anthropogenic global warming is real and greenhouse gas limits are vital to preserving a safer and healthier future for humans and the planet.
gas, show me one graph that is up to date... 2011
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:39pm.
That shows the earth is going to burn up, anytime soon!
March 2011, from NOAA
Burrr
All you have is HOT AIR no science at all
You Didn't Build That.
Gag gas
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:46pm.
I walked outside today and danged if it wasn't cooler than yesterday.
Don't tell anybody (because I think I may be onto a fantastic scientific discovery) but I've noticed that another greenhouse gas (water vapor) also seems to affect temperatures.
I think I can prove it too.
Will you join me in convincing the world to eliminate airborne water vapor? I'm really concerned, since if we get too much of it here in West Texas, the ground could get wet.
And that's something I haven't seen in months.
The recent dip in global
Submitted by Giygas on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:49pm.
The recent dip in global temperature is due to the La NIna event that has been present in the Pacific Ocean since July. Temporary dips in global temperature are expected during a La Nina, even in the presence of global warming. Global temperatures will undoubtedly rebound as the La NIna transitions to ENSO neutral conditions this summer, or even an El Nino.
For more info on the current La nina, follow this link.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/...
Thanks for the weather update, thought we were talking about
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:07am.
climate.
GRAPH
No warming trend, 2011 looks like it's as cold as 1976 or 1955
FAIL Try again.
You Didn't Build That.
→ UCW
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:11am.
Please don't tell Gasbag about how the Little Ice Age contributed to the forces of George Washington kicking the British out of America. He'll spend the rest of his life trying to prove it was all the coal-fired plants, tanks, cars, and trucks that caused the climate to warm after 1776.
Cool I have a graph for that too.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:18am.
No need to post it, he will fail to view it.
Yup the start of American capitalism, chopping down the trees and such.
You Didn't Build That.
As important as looking at
Submitted by Giygas on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 4:09pm.
As important as looking at global temperatures is, instead of looking a regional anomalies, even global temperatures are affected by variability from the El Nino Southern Oscillation, and the 11 year sunspot cycle. To discern long-term changes in global temperatures, scientists take 5 year averages to remove the chaotic ups and downs from El Nino and La Nina. An 11 year average also smooths the cyclical brightening and dimming of the sun.
What you're doing is looking at normal short-term fluctuations that are expected. The very dataset you are citing shows a warming of 0.16°C/decade and 2010 was statistically tied with 1998 as the warmest year on record.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/10/26/statisticians-reject-global-co...
As important as looking at
Submitted by Giygas on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 4:09pm.
As important as looking at global temperatures is, instead of looking a regional anomalies, even global temperatures are affected by variability from the El Nino Southern Oscillation, and the 11 year sunspot cycle. To discern long-term changes in global temperatures, scientists take 5 year averages to remove the chaotic ups and downs from El Nino and La Nina. An 11 year average also smooths the cyclical brightening and dimming of the sun.
What you're doing is looking at normal short-term fluctuations that are expected. The very dataset you are citing shows a warming of 0.16°C/decade and 2010 was statistically tied with 1998 as the warmest year on record.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/10/26/statisticians-reject-global-co...
Hay I look at all kinds of data.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 6:10pm.
1934 has long been considered the warmest year of the past century. A decade ago, the closest challenger appeared to be 1998, a super-el nino year, but it trailed 1934 by 0.54°C (0.97°F). Since then, NASA GISS has “adjusted” the U.S. data for 1934 downward and 1998 upward (see December 25, 2010 post by Ira Glickstein) in an attempt to make 1998 warmer than 1934 and seemingly erased the original rather large lead of 1934 over 1998. The last phases of the strong 2009-2010 el nino in early 2010 made this year another possible contender for the warmest year of the century. However, December 2010 has been one of the coldest Decembers in a century in many parts of the world, so 2010 probably won’t be warmer than 1998. But does it really matter? Regardless of which year wins the temperature adjustment battle, how significant will that be? To answer that question, we need to look at a much longer time frame‒centuries and millennia. . Another graph
Makes todays temp almost meaningless, graph
Hottest year on record.yea right.
Three years ago, GISS was forced to revise many of its figures when it was shown that wholesale “adjustments” had been made, revising older temperatures downwards and post-2000 figures upwards.
You Didn't Build That.
The UAH dataset is managed
Submitted by Giygas on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 12:19am.
The UAH dataset is managed John Christy and Roy Spencer who are among the remaining 3% of working climate scientists who do not believe global warming is a serious problem. As I said in my last comment, UAH shows a 1.6 degree Celsius warming per decade, which is consistent with all other global temperature datasets. UAH likely underestimates warming because the satellites used in the dataset do not include the Arctic, which happens to be the place on Earth that's warming faster than any other region.
1934 is statistically tied with 1998, and 2006 as the warmest year on record in AMERICA, not the entire globe. In the UAH dataset, 2010 statistically tied 1998 as the warmest year on record, despite a strong La NIna in the latter half the year and the deepest solar minimum in a century.
Another angry black zippers giygas account lies again.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 12:30am.
The assessment is based on satellite measurements of the average global temperature of the lower atmosphere made since 16 November 1978 and analysed by a team from UAH. This compares with a UK Meteorological Office estimate announced in November 2010 of an increase of 0.16C per decade between 1970 and 2000 and between 0.05C and 0.13C in the last decade (see below).
Misplaced that period liar. Oh no, not liar, just stupid.
Yeah, that is the way to convince people. Lie to them.
Good strategy that one. Hey come over to my side. Here. Here is some nice tasty lies in a baby spoon just for you. Yum. Yum.
Giygas, dis·in·gen·u·ous, humm what's The Vet say about you
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:43am.
Look pal, I mentioned GISS. not UAH. GISS, ran by your buddy Dr James Hansen is an example of HIDE THE DECLINE, SCREWING WITH DATA AFTER IT'S COLLECTED.
The rest are simply conjectured by GISS. This is not the first time Dr Hansen’s temperature record has come under expert fire. Three years ago, GISS was forced to revise many of its figures when it was shown that wholesale “adjustments” had been made, revising older temperatures downwards and post-2000 figures upwards.
The UAH experiment WAS a scientific problem, which was handeled with scientific methods ...BIG DIFFERENCE.
The arctic has large patches of area that has no data collected, guess what all those areas contorted their data in the approved direction ( averaged up), by the same kooks that wish N' yearn for AGW , and want in on this gravy train.
L@@Kie what your buddy has done...
Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.
The remaining 3% of climate" scientists" are in your camp.
You Didn't Build That.
The corrections that you are
Submitted by Giygas on Sat, 04/16/2011 - 12:39am.
The corrections that you are refering to in GiSS were due to a flaw in processing NOAA's adjustments for its nationwide network of stations from 2000 to 2006, because records for those years were taken from a different dataset ,Global Historical Climatology Network.
Considering that you obviously don't trust GISS and CRU, a study funded by Koch Industries and led by an arch-skeptic, Richard Muller, was launched to prove that GISS, NOAA, and CRU had fudged the temperature data, but unexpectedly found that all three of the datasets were highly accurate and not manipulated.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/04/qa-with-richard-muller...
Giygas, Flaw yea as in HIDE THE DECLINE
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 04/16/2011 - 2:50pm.
arch-skeptic,That's a joke right?
Second BEST Richard Muller, Uses terms like "denier"
Here’s a pro-tip, Dr. Muller.
A man who dislikes pigeonholing doesn’t use the term “denier”. It makes people doubt both your sincerity and your goodwill. You’ve been told many times that I and many other people out here find that term insulting. You continue to use it. Is that stupidity, or do you just not care that you are insulting people, or are you insisting that you have the right to insult people? Whichever way … it’s not good.
Expect the BEST, plan for the worst
Dr. Muller, I’m going to call foul on this one. For you to announce your pre-publication results on this issue is way, way out of line. You get to have your claim entered into the Congressional Record and you don’t even have to produce a single citation or publish a paper or show a scrap of data or code? That is scientific back-stabbing via Congressional testimony, and on my planet it is absolutely unacceptable.
You Didn't Build That.
Giygas LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:13am.
Giygas: So, if the CO2 concentration increases, a larger portion of the infrared radiation would be trapped...
LIE. The CO2 in the air now already converts most of the radiation now. THERE IS VERY LITTLE LEFT TO CONVERT. It is already been done. Adding more CO2 does very little. The CO2 in the air now has already done the job.
You are a nasty vicious little lying retread. Go away.
Tell ya what, Gaseous one
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 10:49pm.
Why don't you quit your bitchin' and support an effort to create an aerosol chemical compound that will rid us of CO2 once and for all.
Then just kick back, pop open a cold one, and watch your planet die.
BTW: You're too stoopid to even be a useful idiot to the climate commies.
Perhaps you should wait for the next lefty scare to come along, like killer bees mating with termites or something, and if we don't surrender our freedoms and liberties and bow down to the UN, they are going to take over the planet and eat us all out of house and home
Oh, and if you are in need of a bridge, please PM me, 'cause I have one I am willing to cut a deal on.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Your paranoia about Obama and
Submitted by Giygas on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:09pm.
Your paranoia about Obama and "climate commies" is quite entertaining to me. Keep it coming!
→ Gaggy
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:49pm.
Gore said it, you believe it, and that settles it?
You need to switch churches. You're not a masseuse, are you? I hear he likes masseuses.
Paranoia is it, Gaseous one?
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 3:59am.
Hardly.
Those "Smart Planet" commercials you have seen on TV ultimately will mean only one thing: Government control of your utilities.
Yep, one night soon, you will be getting boinked by your boyfriend on the deck of your hot tub, and suddenly the lights will go out, the heat will shut off, as well as the pumps, probably killed by a government employee who was hired for reasons other than their qualifications, and you will be left high and dry.
And don't even bother to tell me this isn't coming, as I spent nearly 10 years putting the CAD drawings together to indirectly help bring it about (my bad), and an additional 10 years laying out the routes for the control cables (as well as the transmission towers) to ultimately enable it.
And I won't even bother to get into the GPS part of it, as that would probably blow what is left of your shallow little mind.
Sucks to be you, I guess.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Giygas LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:19am.
Giygas: ...if its concentration increases in the atmosphere, the heat will be trapped and the temperature will increase.
LIE. LIE. LIE. LIE.
The CO2 in the air currently already does the job. There is nothing left to trap. THE JOB HAS BEEN DONE ALREADY.
Go away retread.
Thank you Giygas...
Submitted by jdlybrand on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 8:10pm.
for showing us it only takes one week and six days to prove you're an idiot; and a damned gullible one at that!
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
Giygas, No science in what you post! Just all political opinion
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 10:28pm.
Let’s set a few things straight. The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Where One tree will determine the future of the worlds GDP
Where the Sun has no influence.
The smallest sunspot cycle in two hundred years
Where March 2011 is COLD
Where CU lags on FALLING ocean levels
PURE SCIENCE GET UP TO DATE.
You Didn't Build That.
Unpeer-reviewed
Submitted by Giygas on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:04pm.
Unpeer-reviewed pseudo-science blogs like Watts Up With That? are notoriously unreliable sources of climate change information. Anthony Watts is not a climate scientist, but a weather man on right wing talk radio. Reliable sources of info on global warming come from peer-reviewed scientific journals. These are not inaccessible, they can be found online, but it does require a bit more effort, as they don't get passed around and repasted as much on the internet. I suppose its quicker and easier to read a blog by a radio weather man and walk away thinking you're an instant expert, its like the fast food approach to science.
All gas, all the time. Once again A SCIENCE FREE ZONE
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:26pm.
Watts Up With That Just won the 2011 BEST SCIENCE BLOG
I use WUWT because it's got it together, with FOOT NOTES AND LINKS
You have youtube..ROTFLMAO
Here you go Peer reviewed...
Amazon dry season greener
Amazon dry season browner
Avalanches may increase
Avalanches may decrease – wet snow more though [?]
Bird migrations longer
Bird migrations shorter
Bird migrations out of fashion
Boreal forest fires may increase
Boreal forest fires may continue decreasing
Chinese locusts swarm when warmer
Chinese locusts swarm when cooler
Columbia spotted frogs decline
Columbia spotted frogs thrive in warming world
Coral island atolls to sink [?]
Coral island atolls to rise [? - ?]
Earth’s rotation to slow down
Earth’s rotation to speed up
East Africa to get less rain
East Africa to get more rain – pdf
Great Lakes less snow
Great Lakes more snow
Gulf stream slows down
Gulf stream speeds up a little
Indian monsoons to be drier
Indian monsoons to be wetter
Indian rice yields to decrease – full paper
Indian rice yields to increase
Latin American forests may decline
Latin American forests have thrived in warmer world with more co2!
Leaf area index reduced [1990s]
Leaf area index increased [1981-2006]
Malaria may increase
Malaria may continue decreasing
Malaria in Burundi to increase
Malaria in Burundi to decrease [?]
North Atlantic cod to decline
North Atlantic cod to thrive
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to increase
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to decrease – full pdf
North Atlantic Ocean less salty
North Atlantic Ocean more salty
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to decline [? - ? - ?]
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to grow [?]
Plant methane emissions significant
Plant methane emissions insignificant
Plants move uphill
Plants move downhill [?]
Sahel to get less rain
Sahel to get more rain
Sahel may get more or less rain
San Francisco less foggy
San Francisco more foggy
Sea level rise accelerated
Sea level rise decelerated – full pdf
Soil moisture less
Soil moisture more
Squids get smaller
Squids get larger
Stone age hunters may have triggered past warming [?]
Stone age hunters may have triggered past cooling
Swiss mountain debris flow may increase
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease then increase in volume
UK may get more droughts
UK may get more rain
Wind speed to go up [?]
Wind speed slows down [?]
Wind speed to speed up then slow down
Winters maybe warmer [? - ?]
Winters maybe colder ;O)
You Didn't Build That.
The Award that "Watts Up With
Submitted by Giygas on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:40pm.
The Award that "Watts Up With That?" won is determined mainly by popularity, rather than scientific accuracy. Watts Up With That is an echo chamber that disinforms by cherry-picking data and leaving the inconvenient data out, reiterating myths that have long been discredited, and most egregiously, smearing real climate scientists and distorting their work to delay action on global warming.
I see you FAILED TO read any of the peer reviewed links
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:50pm.
No Graphs, where is the science that backs up what you yap about.
List one smear, leaving data out, reiterating myths..
YOU HAVE NOTHING
No up to date links, NOTHING.
Tired worn out talking points that are years and years OLD.
Come on POST A GRAPH that sez, we are going to burn up ...Rising sea levels that sez we are all going to drown...
WHERE IS YOUR DATA????????????????
You Didn't Build That.
UCW: I see I didn't need to
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:20am.
UCW:
I see I didn't need to post a thing since you're already schooling the young lad. Have fun. Maybe one day we'll hear his face palm when he finally realizes he's been had by his heroes.
No, strat, folks like gasser
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 9:37am.
No, strat, folks like gasser are so deluded by the lies and propaganda that nothing, even cold, hard facts, can sway them. The will go to the grave convinced they are right. The cyclical nature of world climate is a cold, hard scientific fact. That man has severely altered the world climate is literal science fiction.
The global warming con is easily exposed: follow the money.
Two fallacies in your
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:13am.
Two fallacies in your post.
1) "Unpeer-reviewed pseudo-science blogs like Watts Up With That? are notoriously unreliable sources of climate change information."
That some non peer-reviewed sources may present bad scientific data, many do. Like wise with peer-reviewed publications.
2) "Reliable sources of info on global warming come from peer-reviewed scientific journals."
Also wrong. Peer-reviewed journals have not safeguarded the veracity of papers or opinions contained within. Certain "leaders" pushing AWG have utilized peer-reviewed journals to promote false data and false conclusions. The data has been massaged to obtain a desired conclusion. The infamous Hockey Stick graph lie is but one example. The relationship of temperature and CO2 is not what you have been told in the historical data. The placement and numbers of temperature sensors around the world have been grossly mismanaged to the point there appears to be blatant negligence in a number of countries including the US and those in the former Soviet Union, erring unerringly in favor of warming. Temperatures began dropping since 1998, but AGW hysteria magnified..
Scientists who are skeptical of AWG have published in peer-reviewed journals. Your sources failed to explain the depth and breadth of sound scientific skepticism.
Also, from the leaked emails out of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit is but one story of how leaders in the AGW scandal created an environment for journals to prevent, willingly or not, the publishing scientific work skeptical or contradictory to AGW dogma, even from people favorable to the proposal of AGW. This was part of the Climategate scandal that was brushed under the rug by those who placed all their eggs in the unproven AGW conclusion.
Giygas, you are entering into well debated, well researched topic here on NewsBusters. Do not be surprised if you don't stir up a lot of static since only a few posters need reply to demolish your cookie cutter, entry level understanding of a topic you seem to know little more than the Left care to let you know. You have been lied to and used.
To state there is AGW is folly. So is claiming there is no AGW. There isn't proof to claim one way or another at this time, though it looks like the current flavor of AGW is a sociopolitical scam designed to redistribute wealth - the UN actually admitted this in the past year. Because the data is incomplete and flawed in critical areas due to activism bias, and in light of the wealth redistribution scam attempted to be perpetrated by political leaders and activists, the smartest thing, and the most scientific, is to not gut America for an unproven and highly contentious ideological concept.
Yea strat, Lied to and used.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:32am.
Great post...
You Didn't Build That.
I give the Gasser a little
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 9:55am.
I give the Gasser a little credit: he's managed to dig up a plethora of global warming "chicken little" sites.
Doesn't matter is much of the info on them has been debunked.
"PEER REVIEWED"
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Sat, 04/16/2011 - 10:29pm.
"PEER REVIEWED"
The condition where one set of like minded fools, idiots and morons agree with the scribblings of another of their ilk.
Anything written on here is "PEER REVIEWED" and has as much clout as any of the garbage you spout.
naw, make that more clout, because we don't rely and depend on political hyperbole to make our case.
FACT # 1: albore is a political hack intent on making billions of dollars off fools like yourself that are incapable of understanding the real world.
FACT #2: people like you daily make the effort to prove FACT #1.
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
Giygas LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:55am.
The net effect of all these processes is that doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day -- it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can't make it any darker.
Screw you retread lying troll. Go back to troll hell.
Most of the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed.
Ten beams of longwave radiation coming in, 10 CO2 molecules to absorb them. WHAT WILL THE ELEVENTH CO2 MOLECULE DO?
Screw you and your lack of comprehension.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 10:29am.
Eventually, let me repeat that, eventually, (you still didn't get it? Let me repeat it) EVENTUALLY most of the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed.
Too stupid to understand his own source.
Iz best funny germanzee joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 10:58am.
iz percolate you buttfish murrycane. is percolate like coffee. then watchez out! pop pop pop go you buttfishez. iz merkel she power but stupidz yeah! Ha. you laff murrycane, you make coffee? Soros! poop on floor! merkel! power. Groball Warmtimez! Allah iz goot!
merkel she look downstairz. She say hey look you poop. no after you poop. look ferry next post. You miss it. Allah is goot!
...280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas.
evenchoochoo! evenchimichanga! evenstevenchopperz! evenchubacca!
iz merkel cry now. She look waz iz See Oh Too nah? iz cry. then poop on floor. Allah is goot!
Inform yourself thoroughly before writing crap.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 11:14am.
Then your nonsense might accidentally become funny.
What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.
What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
trog, According to your link, WE ARE BURNING UP
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:11pm.
[...] The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up.
Looks like you, and your buddies at your kook site missed this, graph.
You Didn't Build That.
iz not funnee germanzzee joke nah.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:18pm.
merkel is want to know. iz that why Soros he cactch on ze fire burnz se up?
ucw,
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:28pm.
only if you thought that the lower troposphere is all there is to the atmosphere you're argument would have made any sense. As this is clearly not the case, what's your point?
iz funneee germanzee jokiz
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:36pm.
iz merkel call you stupid you no lauff this tim murrycane.
merkel she say too maneez refugee from all grobal warmtimez. She say sorry. Germanzee close today. Go back you came from refugee. iz merkel power. rolliz floor nah murrycane. poppitz butt! Ha!
Flashback 2005: UN Predicts 50 Million Global Warming Refugees By 2010
iz time to go nah. too hot. no can go germanzee. whar go? iz sad.
Pee Es: is conservtive. iz kick puppiz even refugee. got boney fidez.
That you parrot
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:46pm.
Noel's false claim that the UN predicted 50 million GW Refugees by 2010 (in reality they claimed that there would be 50 million environmental refugees), is all well and good. I didn't expect anything else from you. But why do you prove again and again that you're an absolute failure when it comes to comedy and ridicule?
iz funnee germanzee joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 1:09pm.
iz trolliz mad nah? iz baby gotz fullz diapurz?
Hazzy Burthdei brogal warmtimez! grobiz warmnaz 23 years old diz year. Old enough to drink beerz nah! get drumk. have happy timez merkel! Allah be praise! Goot Allah!
Ezzybody feel all teh warmtimez aftiz 23 yearz?
Happy Birthdei!!!!~!~!!
Iz fix nah little sissy? Iz fix for us nah? or iz complain to stupidz about birdeez?
Oopz. iz germanzee lie again after lose war.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 9:44pm.
"There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change," Dr Bogardi said.
oopizdoodlez said merkel loser 2 warz blobaloney warmtimez too. not realitiz. iz troggiz get caught lie aginz.
trog, What part of "SURFACE" DON'T YOU GET?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:56pm.
So you are going to tell they are talking about the surface of space or the surface of the Moon!
[...] The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up.
So tell me what magic "surface" is the warmest folk referring to?
You Didn't Build That.
ucw
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 1:02pm.
As long as you don't count in other factors influencing average tropospheric temperatures your argument would make sense. But that this would be a rather poor model of reality is obvious.
What other factors, lol planet X.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 1:15pm.
But that this would be a rather poor model of reality is obvious.
What? Need to refresh that german to English translator.
OK ok I'll take a stab at it....I posted a GRAPH, not a model.
"Surface" you missed explaining that one.
You Didn't Build That.
ucw, really?
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 2:11pm.
Oceans and their currents, weather patterns, seasons...
I posted a GRAPH, not a model.
Who said you did?
iz germanzee lost zee war. iz still sad.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 9:31pm.
now is lose groblal warmthing big war lie too. iz merkel soros allah sad nah. iz monkeypipple talk about CO2? divertitz! tropospering get warm crash planez. iz monkeypippple talk about tropozsphooz, divertz! talk about modelz in studioss! iz monkeypipple talkz about modelz. divertz lookee thar! talk about graphz. iz monkeypipple talk about graphz! divertz! call monkipipple stupidz!! make lie. merkel! roll floort! butt popz!
iz merkel mad lose war. she fiz glogal warmtings! 23 years merkel not lift finger to fixz. go fix now nah! make cold globalz warmtimez! fix nah! power! you go germanzee, win big war lie global warmsingz!
Giygas LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 2:44am.
Lo and behold, the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. One thing to bear in mind is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 got down to 180 ppm during the glacial periods of the ice age the Earth is currently in (the Holocene is an interglacial in the ice age that started three million years ago).
Giygas LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 2:50am.
What is often quoted is that CO2 doubling causes an increase in radiance to earth’s surface of 3.7 watts/meter squared, which in turn raises temperatures about 1 degree Celsius. Why the reference to “doubling”? Because we’re talking about light and filtering materials. Consider that you have several pairs of sun glasses, each of which blocks 50% of the light. If you put two pairs in a row, do they block 100%? Of course not. The first pair blocks 50% and the second pair blocks 50% of what is left, which is 25% of the original light. The third pair would only block 12.5% of the original light. CO2 suffers from the same law of diminishing returns. What keeps getting left out of the climate discussion is what happens after the first doubling. The pre-industrial levels (1900 AD or so) of CO2 are commonly quoted at 278 PPM (parts per million) and the current levels are at about 385 ppm. If we look at this graph, it becomes pretty clear that we would have to generate a LOT of CO2 to get much more effect than we are already:
Could Giygas be an evicted NB commenter?
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 9:41am.
I am beginning to wonder if "Giygas" could be a former NewsBuster commenter who was recently evicted from NB under a different ident? There are similarities in posting style and misrepresenting link content that I am noticing. Anyone else noticing this?
Private Bill Wilson?
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 11:00am.
Who else you got in mind buddy?
iz funnee germanzzeee joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 11:26am.
iz merkel own butt pop off when learn dis murrycane.
Additionally, greenhouse gases are only able to absorb radiation in very specific electromagnetic frequencies and Earth does not radiate limitless amounts of energy in the appropriate bandwidths. This means there is 'competition' for available energy and significant greenhouse potential is unrealized (carbon dioxide could absorb more than 3 times the energy it currently does in the atmosphere were it not for competition from clouds and water vapor, clouds alone could absorb 50% of available energy but manage to capture just 14% and so on...).
So, despite there being far more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than required to achieve the current greenhouse effect, something which has been true since before humans discovered fire, evapo-transpiration and thermals transport heat higher in the atmosphere where radiation to space is increased. This is why Earth remains about 15 °C (288 K) rather than about 77 °C (350 K).
iz merkel so ztupid, not know. meanz to say? iz not evenchoochoo use all CO2 nah? Noez say merkel, haz to, rilly? noooooooo. but is more gonna melt all iz bunniez? Awwww. meanings to say? you add more prolly nuttin? awwwww.
You probably don't even know what argument you're making.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 11:43am.
So whatever.
iz funnee germanzzeee joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:15pm.
iz funneee so funneeee you laff laff laff murrycane. pippity pop pop go you butt. Allah is goot. He laff 2.
iz Soros iz died fire. iz was burnt pretty bad. iz morgue needed someonez to identify de body.
So his two best friends, troggiz trolliz and merkel, were sent for. troggiz trolliz went in and the mortician pulled back the sheet.
iz troggiz sez "Yup, he's burnt pretty bad. Roll hiz over."
Somortician he roll over and troggiz looked and said "Nope, it ain't Soros."
So mortician he thinking that strange. Then he brought merkel to identify bodiz. merkel look at hiz and said Yup, he burnt ferry bad, roll hiz over."
Ze mortician he roll hiz over and merkel lookee down and said, "No, it ain't Soros."
Ze mortician iz ask "How you tell?"
merkel siz "Well, Soros had two buttholes."
What?, He haz two buttholes?" say ze mortician..
"Yup, everone in town theyz knew he haz two buttholes. Ever time he go town, volks would say "Here comes Soros with them two buttholes."
Ahhhh. iz funnee. go luk you butt no murrycane. it fly window hit allah go down street. merkel! poop on floor! Allah goot! Glabol Warmtimes! Pray allah everonez!
Where's Noel?
Submitted by Rukus on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:13pm.
I figured he'd be in here rippin' this alarmist goober into little hockey sticks by now.
Iz funneee time in germanzee.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 11:44pm.
troggiz zee trolliz: Noel's false claim that the UN predicted 50 million GW Refugees by 2010 (in reality they claimed that there would be 50 million environmental refugees)...
awww iz call Mizzer Sheppard liar. iz call Veet liar. iz call uppykooktreeaqua liar. iz call merkel too muches power. iz call ezzyone stupid.
so why is lie if so muchez better than evaronez?
iz found originalz release from United Nationz Universitalschmood --- There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change and other phenomena,” says UNU-EHS Director Janos Bogardi.
wha....? climack changingz? wha....? you siz Mizzer Sheppard big fat liarz pantie firez.
why iZ? why iz call liar liar liar then bustedz in own liez? no make sense trolliz troggiz. merkel mad. she no fight new warz globat warmthingz if troggiz lie. trooggiz pologize to merkel.
parrotz! liarz! Allah be goot! Soros! burnt! tropofar too hot!
Déjà Vu: “50 Million” Environmental Refugee Lies Regurgitated
Oh nice,
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 5:25am.
now the xenophobic, right-wing, white supremacist BNP is part of your pool of sources? What's next? Discussing race issues using links to the KKK?
Get a grip and do some source evaluation before you post your stuff.
you trespectingz trollie nah. iz demandyou nah.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 6:44am.
iz grampee dying of syphilisis trollie gave to gramppee. make trollie sad and itchee. So trollie go into usual trollie mode. diss on sources. iz no matter source was only fer picture of articuls. iZ no matter 2 sources from monkipipples. iz no matter trollee lie agin. bustee liez. to bad so sad. time for trollee to go kiss gramppee nignt night. trolliee use lots of tongue with fake gramppee, make gramppee happiz.
iz tine to admitz liez say trollie. ohs. trolliez no say it. but defeninz silelncez sez so
troggiz zee trolliz: Noel's false claim that the UN predicted 50 million GW Refugees by 2010 (in reality they claimed that there would be 50 million environmental refugees)...
iz found originalz release from United Nationz Universitalschmood --- There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change and other phenomena,” says UNU-EHS Director Janos Bogardi.
trolliz iz no dissez dat sourcez monkipipplez. dat sourcez cole buzzTed trolliz.
"and other phenomena"
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 8:15am.
Let me emphasize: and other phenomena.
Moron. Go back to school before the "z" on your keyboard gives up.
You mad Troggy?
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 8:27am.
I thought you'd be used to the Vet making you look stupid.
iz mizz itz.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 8:27am.
iz kno see udder mominomz heah --->
troggiz zee trolliz: Noel's false claim that the UN predicted 50 million GW Refugees by 2010 (in reality they claimed that there would be 50 million environmental refugees)...
iz liez again. why iz trolliz dizzmizzez broke warmthingz and focuz only on the udder phelomdomningz but itz talkiz talk talkz never mentioning quotee quote quote "udder" unquotee quote qquote squat.
trolliz sure likiz to start namez callinz when bustedz all teh liez. noticingz dat mominominomz. the more hard busted, teh more namez callinz.
Don't you want to share other stuff
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 8:48am.
you have found while searching your fascist friend's homepage? The Vet champions the British National Party as a provider of bias free facts concerning refugees. How stupid is that?
Wazzaeveah! rezpectingz teh trolliz!
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 8:57am.
10. Refuse to admit your errors.
Never ever admit your errors no matter how blatant they are. If you find no way out and have to admit that you are wrong, phrase it so that you can accuse your opponent of being wrong.
iz pray nah. iz prei trolliz bible.
troggiz zee trolliz: Noel's FALSE CLAIM that the UN predicted 50 million GW Refugees by 2010 (in reality they claimed that there would be 50 million environmental refugees)...
iz found originalz release from United Nationz Universitalschmood --- There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of CLIMATE CHANGE and other phenomena,” says UNU-EHS Director Janos Bogardi
It must suck
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 9:07am.
Being beaten over the head with your own book. But then trolls have never had enough sense to quit before they are senseless,,,,,,,,,, hmm is that possible.
Another poster who succeeds
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 9:09am.
in showing his inability to follow a discussion. But I'll blame the Vet. His posts probably make you dizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzy.
And you just validated
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 9:58am.
And you just validated Boudin's point. Congrats!
Welcome in the club
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:04am.
.
More validation.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:03am.
More validation.
Do you want a membership card
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:36am.
or what?
Another validation. Good job!
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:50am.
Another validation. Good job!
As we are two in this endeavour
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 12:07pm.
I'm sure we'll finish in time for dinner.
Keep going trog, you're doing
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 12:42pm.
Keep going trog, you're doing an excellent job validating their points about you.
iz funnee germanzee joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:11am.
iz mad agin trolliz. iz busted nudder lie. tine to turn on trolliz postz.
Furzt is CO2 already carry big load in pre-idnustrial levels. Ad more - nuttin' iz call udderz stupid when it trollifail to read linkee linkz.
...280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas.
supidz! dummiz! dummiz from dummiz town. U not conservitx.
Then getz linkee link from wezsite talking to us like iz children. Iz troposmopos get warmee, say to udder cloudee layerz, you no cool down nah. Iz troposmopos make rulez.
then get busteeez the big lie about Mizzer Sheppard.
You stupidly dummiz dimmee dum dumz!
nah is dummiz dum dum ezzerwon to post heah. dummiz! stupeeZ!
iz call somebody meat dinner nah!
You iz meatloaf! You is broiled halibutz! You is pork sanich!
You are a shining example of what we in Germany call a "Mitläufer".
You meatloaf dummiz dumi dummi. Ha! merkel! power!