For fat_bugger...
-
Parliament misled over Climategate report, says MP[^].
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Parliament misled over Climategate report, says MP[^].
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Good on him. Perhaps we will see some real results form this after all. Mind you, Jones has pretty much thrown the towel in by stating that the warming since 1995 is stastically no more significant than the previous three warming periods. This is an absoloute slam dunk for the scpetics. How the hell can they state man is responsible for this warming period when it differs not from periods without man made CO2? Of course they cant. Its an utter farce, the whole thing.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Good on him. Perhaps we will see some real results form this after all. Mind you, Jones has pretty much thrown the towel in by stating that the warming since 1995 is stastically no more significant than the previous three warming periods. This is an absoloute slam dunk for the scpetics. How the hell can they state man is responsible for this warming period when it differs not from periods without man made CO2? Of course they cant. Its an utter farce, the whole thing.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
For me, this says it all: "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." If the data and methodology was good what did he have to fear? Still, the real problem here is that it tarnishes everything and, even though I am one of the 'lunatic' skeptics, that can't be a good thing. I'd be happy to be proven incorrect but, the way things are going, that looks increasingly unlikely to happen which means that processes and ideas that could help everyone also, possibly, get sidelined by association.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
For me, this says it all: "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." If the data and methodology was good what did he have to fear? Still, the real problem here is that it tarnishes everything and, even though I am one of the 'lunatic' skeptics, that can't be a good thing. I'd be happy to be proven incorrect but, the way things are going, that looks increasingly unlikely to happen which means that processes and ideas that could help everyone also, possibly, get sidelined by association.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
digital man wrote:
I am one of the 'lunatic' skeptics
You mean you don't believe in me? :sigh: :-D
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
Did someone say something?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Good on him. Perhaps we will see some real results form this after all. Mind you, Jones has pretty much thrown the towel in by stating that the warming since 1995 is stastically no more significant than the previous three warming periods. This is an absoloute slam dunk for the scpetics. How the hell can they state man is responsible for this warming period when it differs not from periods without man made CO2? Of course they cant. Its an utter farce, the whole thing.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
For me, this says it all: "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." If the data and methodology was good what did he have to fear? Still, the real problem here is that it tarnishes everything and, even though I am one of the 'lunatic' skeptics, that can't be a good thing. I'd be happy to be proven incorrect but, the way things are going, that looks increasingly unlikely to happen which means that processes and ideas that could help everyone also, possibly, get sidelined by association.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Yes, it is SUCH a give away that the data HAD been manipulated and that is methods would not stand scrutiny. The same thing happened with Hansen. When Watts finally got hold of his data and programs he found an error that actually made the 1930's the hottest year in the US. There is so much blatant fraud in AGW it ammazes me that anyone can still maintain its tenets.
digital man wrote:
association
Absofuckinglutely. These idots have done more damage to the environmental movement and the advance of science and technology that the church ever managed. Cretins.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Got any proof of that? I do recall having heard that a non ice age earth is devoid of ice, and so we nevr fully left the previous ice age, unlike previous inter=ice age periods. If you can substantiate that I would appreciate it.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Got any proof of that? I do recall having heard that a non ice age earth is devoid of ice, and so we nevr fully left the previous ice age, unlike previous inter=ice age periods. If you can substantiate that I would appreciate it.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
The definition says it all, to quote wikipedia: "Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of extra cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres; by this definition we are still in the ice age that began at the start of the Pleistocene (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist)" And graphs like this one show that, on a big scale, we're in a "valley" in the temperature line, possibly not even at the bottom http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png[^]
-
Did someone say something?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
