Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Cyclone]

Maybe you should check the subsequent reports by the House of commons and the university that have exonerated the scientists of the charges against them? You will find that what i was saying all along has been proved to be correct. There was no fraud.

 

Again, maybe in your reality distortion field. I happen to disagree having read some of the emails and the comments in the source code about 'fixing' and 'fudging' the numbers.

The whole thing stinks like three week old lasagne.

[Wildcat]

Would you care to answer my questions or just make silly little comments like the one above? Melting sea ice doesn't increase sea levels. So which type of ice is melting?

 

Land Ice. I made it clear enough.

 

The CRU never cherry picked did they, Michael Mann never did, did he? You really should be on the stage old bean.

 

The reports and all the evidence says not.

 

Solar irradiance hasn't been constant. It has been constantly ignored by true believers though. Increasing levels of CO2 can't explain the recent cooling period, however the massive decrease in solar activity can. So far none of the GIGO models 'scenarios' have been proven to be correct. PS Anecdotal 'evidence' doesn't count, although the IPCC does seem to rely on it when it can't get the results it wants.

 

Total rubbish again solar radiation has been the subject of plenty of study.. here is one for example:

 

during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

 

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf

 

Yet again a link to a pro AGW site, linking to sources that rely on AGW being true to ensure their funding.

 

So what? Check the links they provide a comprehensive links of available data sets. Which proves the point you were making was total rubbish.

 

As for your climate progress website, weren't they the site that said

when talking about climate realists?

 

No idea. It looks like a rhetorhical sentence, I would be interested in the context. I am sure the article will be an interesting one. Can you provide the link?

Edited June 4, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

Again, maybe in your reality distortion field. I happen to disagree having read some of the emails and the comments in the source code about 'fixing' and 'fudging' the numbers.

The whole thing stinks like three week old lasagne.

 

I have too and the word 'trick' does not indicate fraud. plenty of other papers have used the word in just the same innocent way. In context these things were and are obvious. In fact to not use the trick refered to would have been a fraud. It requires cherry picking of the sentences to misunderstand them.

 

It discusses the point about halfway through the first video.

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/14/P70SlEqX7oY

 

Edited June 4, 2010 by Wildcat

[retep]

That is a very serious claim. Who are you referring to?

 

The only people that have consistently been exposed as frauds are climate change denialists.

 

Al Gore and a few others have made some mistakes, but nothing that would amount to fraud.

 

NASA charged in New Climate Fakery

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23800

[Cyclone]

I have too and the word 'trick' does not indicate fraud. plenty of other papers have used the word in just the same innocent way. In context these things were and are obvious. In fact to not use the trick refered to would have been a fraud. It requires cherry picking of the sentences to misunderstand them.

 

It discusses the point about halfway through the first video.

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/14/P70SlEqX7oY

 

 

Spoken like a true fraud denialist.

[convert]

No idea. It looks like a rhetorhical sentence, I would be interested in the context. I am sure the article will be an interesting one. Can you provide the link?

 

I can only provide links that quote the article, as ClimateProgress removed it the day after it was posted.

 

http://climatedepot.com/a/1096/Execute-Skeptics-Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers--Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now

 

Plenty of other mad war cries from the green lobby are also linked to on that site.

 

 

Hardly the voices of reason are they.

 

A public appeal has been issued by an influential U.S. website asking: “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.” The appeal appeared on Talking Points Memo, an often cited website that helps set the agenda for the political Left in the U.S. The anonymous posting, dated June 2, 2009, referred to dissenters of man-made global warming fears as “greedy ********” who use “bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool” to “distort data.”

 

The Talking Points Memo article continues: “So when the right wing :censored: have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events - how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn't we start punishing them now?"

 

The article also claims the “vast majority” of scientists agree that man-made warming “can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth.”

 

The full text of the Talking Points Memo is reproduced below:

 

(Note: The entry is posted under the anonymous byline "The Insolent Braggart")

 

At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers

 

June 2, 2009, 9:42PM

 

What is so frustrating about these fools is that they are the politicians and greedy :censored: who don't want a cut in their profits who use bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool who will distort data for a few bucks. The vast majority of the scientific minds in the World agree and understand it's a very serious problem that can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth.

 

So when the right wing :censored: have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events - how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn't we start punishing them now?

 

#

 

Climate Depot Editor's Note:

 

The Talking Points Memo appeal to execute skeptics is not unique. As the science behind man-made global warming fears utterly collapses, many of the biggest promoters of the theory and environmental activists are growing increasingly desperate. Looming Question: If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?

 

Small sampling of threats, intimidation and censorship:

 

NASA's James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for "high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics of 2007 declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies "criminal enterprises" and declared CEO's 'should be in jail... for all of eternity."

 

In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. "An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds," stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them "not a threat, but a prediction."

 

In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel's climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.

 

A 2008 report found that 'climate blasphemy' is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.

 

In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to 'Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called 'Climate Criminals' who are committing 'Terracide' (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to 'shut down' climate skeptic's testimony at hearing.

 

Below are many more examples of the threats, name calling and intimidation skeptics have faced in recent times.

 

November 12, 2007: UN official warns ignoring warming would be 'criminally irresponsible' Excerpt: The U.N.'s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be "criminally irresponsible." Yvo de Boer's comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating.

 

September 29. 2007: VA State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: 'I was told that I could not speak in public' Excerpt: Michaels has argued that the climate is becoming warmer but that the consequences will not be as dire as others have predicted. Gov. Kaine had warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. "I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist," Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. "It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction." (LINK)

 

Skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor (February 8, 2007) Excerpt: “[state Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change...So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.

 

Skeptical State Climatologist in Delaware silenced by Governor (May 2, 2007) Excerpt: Legates is a state climatologist in Delaware, and he teaches at the university. He`s not part of the mythical climate consensus. In fact, Legates believes that we oversimplify climate by just blaming greenhouse gases. One day he received a letter from the governor, saying his views do not concur with those of the administration, so if he wants to speak out, it must be as an individual, not as a state climatologist. So essentially, you can have the title of state climatologist unless he`s talking about his views on climate?

 

October 28, 2008: License to dissent: 'Internet should be nationalized as a public utility' to combat global warming skepticism - Australian Herald Sun - Excerpt: British journalism lecturer and warming alarmist Alex Lockwood says my blog is a menace to the planet. Skeptical bloggers like me need bringing into line, and Lockwood tells a journalism seminar of some options: There is clearly a need for research into the ways in which climate skepticism online is free to contest scientific fact. But there is enough here already to put forward some of the ideas in circulation. One of the founders of the Internet Vint Cerf, and lead for Google's Internet for Everyone project, made a recent suggestion that the Internet should be nationalized as a public utility. As tech policy blogger Jim Harper argues, “giving power over the Internet to well-heeled interests and self-interested politicians” is, and I quote, “a bad idea.” Or in the UK every new online publication could be required to register with the recently announced Internet watchdog...

 

November 5, 2008: UK Scientist: 'BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE' – UK Daily Express

 

Excerpt: FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists. His crime? Bellamy says he doesn't believe in man-made global warming. Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.

 

U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears (May 10, 2007)

 

Excerpt: UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN's scientific “consensus."

 

Former US Vice President Al Gore compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006)

 

Gore Refuses to Hear Skeptical Global Warming Views (Video)

 

UK environment secretary David Miliband said 'those who deny [climate change] are the flat-Earthers of the twenty-first century' (October 6, 2006)

 

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics (January 17, 2007) Excerpt: The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

 

Barone: Warmists have 'a desire to kill heretics' -- Calls for capital punishment for 'global warming deniers' - DC Examiner - June 9, 2009

 

Strangle Skeptics in Bed! 'An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds' - June 5, 2009

[GordonBennet]

Maybe you should check the subsequent reports by the House of commons and the university that have exonerated the scientists of the charges against them? You will find that what i was saying all along has been proved to be correct. There was no fraud.

 

Does the word "whitewash" mean anything to you?

 

Of course the scientists were exonorated by their friends in Westminster! There's an awful lot of research grants and green taxes dependent on the perpetuation of the global warming myth.

 

In reality, as we now know, the Climate gate scandal proved that global warming isn't happening and that for the last ten years the earth has actually been cooling, but the pro-global warming lobby had suppressed this. No amount of whitewashing can change that fact.

 

The latest news that the Pacific Islands are growing, not shrinking just reinforces this.

[convert]

Does the word "whitewash" mean anything to you?

 

Of course the scientists were exonorated by their friends in Westminster! There's an awful lot of research grants and green taxes dependent on the perpetuation of the global warming myth.

 

In reality, as we now know, the Climate gate scandal proved that global warming isn't happening and that for the last ten years the earth has actually been cooling, but the pro-global warming lobby had suppressed this. No amount of whitewashing can change that fact.

 

The latest news that the Pacific Islands are growing, not shrinking just reinforces this.

 

Well said.

 

Of course Wildcat stating that there was no Fraud isn't exactly the outcome though.

 

The CRU's failure to comply with FOI requests was criminal, but fell outside the statute of limitations for the offence. This is the only reason that they weren't prosecuted.

 

Not only are the CRU negligent; they're criminally negligent.

[Wildcat]

I can only provide links that quote the article, as ClimateProgress removed it the day after it was posted.

 

http://climatedepot.com/a/1096/Execute-Skeptics-Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers--Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now

 

Plenty of other mad war cries from the green lobby are also linked to on that site.

 

How could Climateprogress remove it when it wasn't even on their website?

 

The article doesn't even mention ClimateProgress.

 

btw The sentiments are perfectly understandable. I imagine very similar comments are being made about the oil company advocates "drill, baby drill" in the US at the moment as a result of the latest and largest oil based environmental disaster as a result of oil industry lobbyests actions opposing regulations and safety.

[Wildcat]

Well said.

 

Of course Wildcat stating that there was no Fraud isn't exactly the outcome though.

 

The CRU's failure to comply with FOI requests was criminal, but fell outside the statute of limitations for the offence. This is the only reason that they weren't prosecuted.

 

Not only are the CRU negligent; they're criminally negligent.

 

There is no evidence that CRU behaved criminally in its handling of FOI requests. There were some emails that looked compromising. But there is no evidence they were anything other than the scientists letting off steam. The Select Committee criticised the Information Commissioner for making a statement about the case not backed up by the evidence.

 

Not providing that information however, had no bearing on the ability of the requestors to do their own research based on the huge wealth of data available. Something they have either failed to do or failed to publish because the data as numerous studies have shown supports CRU's conclusions.