 |
|
 |
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:20:21 -0800 (PST), ToothlessJon <...@gmail.com
On Dec 7, 5:14 pm, Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
My response would be, does it really matter if global warming exists
or not? We shouldn't need a reason to be responsible citizens of the
planet. If global warming is suddenly and 100% disproved tomorrow, do
we throw out all the curly light bulbs and bring back the Styrofoam
Big Mac containers?
The bigger question IMO is should the government reward or punish
companies/citizens through taxes for their "green" behavior and if yes
how such a system would work?
Cheers,
Jon_
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:57:30 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 8, 5:20 pm, ToothlessJon <...@gmail.com
absolutley the most logical statement that i have seen on the subject
kudos
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 05:44:07 -0800 (PST), Matt <...@gmail.com
Many of those "experts in tin foil hats" happen to be some of the most
brilliant scientists in the world; people who are far more intelligent
then you could ever hope to be. I'm not saying they can't be wrong, or
that this situation isn't shady, however, regardless of the data and
what it means, you're attempt to make top scientists out to be
"crazies" is laughable at best, or simply sad at worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:45:37 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 8, 10:44 am, Matt <...@gmail.com
hey dont hate the messenger...hate the message.....it was
verbatim....truth doesnt have to be manipulated or enhanced, the fact
of the matter is that data was edited in an effort to portray an
untrue position...period
I'm not saying they can't be wrong, or
agreed we share the same thoughts there
however, regardless of the data and
i dont think i have ever called anyone a "crazy" on this issue, could
u point me to where i have??
I did not create the title. tinfoil hatters....
are they crazy?? heck who knows...
.do i believe in their jiberish...in part i do ,
but
for the most part i think a lot of it is self serving drivel
but i never call anyone crazy, at least i dont think i did...
thanks
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:57:34 -0800 (PST), Matt <...@gmail.com
You're loosing it man... to call someone to a "tinfoil hater" is to
imply they're crazy. If you legitimately don't think they're crazy,
then stop using dumb-ass catch phrases like "tin foil haters",
especially if you don't understand the connotation terms like that
carry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 08:11:20 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 8, 12:57 pm, Matt <...@gmail.com
i think you need to read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat
i dont think u will see the word crazy there at all and i take it that
you could find no where that i used the word either
thanks
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 08:45:35 -0800 (PST), Matt <...@gmail.com
No apparently you need to read it. From the article:
"'...has become a popular stereotype and term of derision..."
Do you know what derision means Darryl? It means mockery. The term is
a stereotype and when used as a adjective, as you did, is meant as an
insult.
"...the phrase serves as a byword for paranoia and persecutory
delusions, and is associated with conspiracy theorists."
Paranoia/ delusions/ conspiracy.... a.k.a. "crazy". Forget the
semantics Darryl, any sane person would know the connotation of that
term... which I why I guess you seem unable to grasp the concept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:56:06 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 8, 1:45 pm, Matt <...@gmail.com
dont mean crazy
nope nice try though
Forget the
i havent mentioned sematics. u did
any sane person would know the connotation of that
hahah so im crazy????
thanks
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:15:19 -0330, Carter <per_ardua@ad_astra
Matt, slow down a bit and think about what you are saying. To
call someone a 'tinfoil hatter' does not imply that they are
crazy. The term implies paranoia not insanity as is implied by
the word crazy.
Carter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:25:02 -0800 (PST), Matt <...@gmail.com
Ah yes, the king of semantics himself. Give me a break Carter; go ask
100 people on street what they think the term "tin foil hater"
means... I'm quit sure my conclusion will be sound.
That term is meant to stir up images of people who are out to lunch,
living in their mothers basement, spewing misinformation, etc. Hardly
the image to associate some of the worlds top scientists with, yet
Darryl does it all the time.
Matt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:43:21 -0330, Jomo <...@yahoo.com
Isn't a 'tin foil hater' one who hates tin foil?
> Matt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:56:59 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 8, 2:25 pm, Matt <...@gmail.com
hahah this one is too easy
i wont touch it at all
haha
thanks
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:03:51 -0330, Snipe <...@hotmail.com
Too easy?...I doubt that you even understood what he was saying...lol
snipe
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:39:08 -0330, Carter <per_ardua@ad_astra
Your conclusion may be sound according to a select 100 people on
the street who would be as wrong as you are. Your conclusion is
not sound according to the real meanings of the terms and words
you are using.
Call it semantics if you will, I would imagine your 100 people on
the street would call it that also and they would all be as wrong
as you are.
Maybe but neither of those descriptions mean crazy.
Carter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:43:26 -0800 (PST), Matt <...@gmail.com
LOL there is no "real" meaning. I don't know if you've noticed, but
"tin foil hatter" is not a real word, nor an official term. It's
slang. So yeah, whatever people on the "street" think, THATs what it
means.
Bottom line here is, Darryl uses lame-ass catch phrases all the time,
and tries make those scientists who predict harsh outcomes from global
warming out to be loons. Yourself and him included can try to dress it
up whatever way you see fit, but he's made his nonsensical opinion
abundantly clear.
I wasn't arguing the point one way or another, I'm just stating that
using a term like "tin foil hatters" and using quotations around the
word "experts" in reference to brilliant people is simply foolish. End
of story.
Anyway, this silly conversation has gone on long enough. Peace.
Matt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:05:15 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 8, 5:43 pm, Matt <...@gmail.com
yup and it achieves the desired results as attested to your continued
irritations to them
nope just conspirasists and self absorbed "tin foil hatters"
brilliant people do not need to change data or manipulate and lie to
achieve truth...those are theones i refer directly to
thanks
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:24:50 -0800 (PST), Matt <...@gmail.com
1. Thank you for once again confirming that you are a troll (otherwise
known as the most useless citizen of the internet).
2. I'm simply pointing out how foolish they are, no irritation here,
though I know you'd love to think so.
Your quote:
"Temps have pnly spike a couple of times in the last 10 years as
opposed to the yearly increases that we have been told by
these"experts" in the tinfoil hats?"
The people suggesting temperatures are rising are the a majority of
scientists. So inadvertently or not, by saying the above, you were
referring to more then just your silly you-tubers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:38:44 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 8, 6:24 pm, Matt <...@gmail.com
not really, if you werent iritated you would not respond , it is that
sort of "inducing factor" that makes it useful. but i also see your
point
i understand that as well
in fact, according to cbs the temps have not been spiking yearly in
the last decade....so i dont thing the majority of scientists are
saying differently...only the "tin foil hatters" are
that silly you-tuber is laughable i agree, and in fact it was his link
on another posters thread that got me inspired to look deeper, so i
guess i should thank him/her for lighting the curiosity in me, but i
want to clarify that for the record when i refer to tin foil hatters,
i refer to the chicken littles that breed doomsday messages for
nothing more than self serving gain, be it financial or
otherwise...and yes that idiot in his mothers basement on you tube is
a prime example of otherwise hehe
thanks
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:12:15 -0330, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
Darryl obviously doesn't have the first clue about climate. As I said,
it's pure idiocy to think an email or two TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT is more
proof than what we are seeing with our own eyes. All but one glacier is
receding at unnaturally high rates. Arctic sea ice is vanishing 1000
times faster than nature can manage. Antarctica is showing signs of
accelerated melting.
Not the mention the bumper crops of icebergs we've been seeing. My
guess, Darryl thinks that means it's getting cooler.
..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:07:40 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 8, 7:42 pm, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
for a person that doesnt want to read my posts you seem to know a lot
about them haha
thanks
Darryl
ps for the record. did we cause the last ice age? did we tilt the
earth on its axis with the violent undersea earthquake that killed
hundreds of thousands in Indonesia a few years back, look up what that
little tilt has done to the temperatures as well
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:14:47 -0330, Carter <per_ardua@ad_astra
Yeah, I agree. Before we abandon it, however, I would like to
know one thing; how do you know the people who Darryl is talking
about are brilliant?
Carter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:08:48 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 8, 7:44 pm, Carter <per_ardua@ad_astra
thats simple carter, it is becasue is it the opposite of what i call
them so therefore its GOT to be true haha
thanks
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:10:17 -0330, Snipe <...@hotmail.com
Perhaps the same way Darryl knows that they are Tin foil haters...
snipe
> Carter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:23:16 -0330, Snipe <...@hotmail.com
Really! So someone who dawns a hat made of tin foil to shield their
brain from mind control/surveillance by various supernatural or
conspirital organizations is not crazy? What size hat do you wear?
snipe
The term
> Carter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:36:41 -0330, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
LOL. TFF. Carter is an old-timer. He hasn't clued in that in today's
society, it means they're nuts. In Carter's time, it was a fashion to
wear tinfoil hats....usually with feathers.
..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:54:24 -0800 (PST), Uncle Mose <...@gmail.com
On Dec 7, 5:14 pm, Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
Having read through most all the comments here I can say there is
some argument to be said against climate change and there are indeed
doubts. However just stop and think about what you are saying. You are
saying that 6 billion people on this planet producing ever more
pollution are having no effect on this planets and it’s climate. You
are in essence saying that all the scientist are wrong. If we carry on
as we are and all the people who deny climate change exist are correct
then the worlds population and the planet earth as nothing to worry
about and we go on with the status quo. Nothing will happen and we go
merrily about our lives.
So now I have to ask this question. What if most of the scientist are
correct? Which in all likelihood they are as I would place my bet on
well founded science. What is the consequence of ignoring or trying to
confuse the information of hundreds if not thousands of scientist? The
consequences are catastrophic.
While yes there may be some scientist who tried to fudge their
research for whatever reasons. The scientific community overall
believes that climate change is happening. So will you take the chance
that the deniers of this and the conspiracy theorist are right? Will
you stick your head in the sand and toss out the information by other
well meaning scientist? This is to important a subject to be confused
by junk science and conspiracy theorist. The consequences of us not
doing anything and confusing the matter is astounding.
Yes there are indeed some doubts and the science is not perfect but
anyone using logic can see there is something wrong with our climate
and that the overall message is mostly correct. To deny it all
together is pure ignorance. To question it is good science. Yes it’s
ok to ask the questions and argue your point about wether climate
change is occurring and by how much but can you seriously tell me that
with all the scientific information out there and all the scientist
who say this is happening that you do not think climate change exist?
Can you seriously tell me that we as a people are having no affect on
this planet? To what degree as yet to be born out. If we carry on as
we are we have much to lose but if we try to do something about it at
least we would have tried. Answer the questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:10:27 -0330, clouddreamer <...@nd.Reduce.now
The information in Darryl's post has been suitably explained. It
essentially had laymen reading scientific information without a clue as
to what they were talking about.
The explanation of the terminology used in the emails is here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
So, in reality, no scientist have skewed data. One email using
scientific terminology taken out of context is all it was.
Quite simply, as you note, the information is peer-reviewed. No way in
the world that that many scientists can skew enough results to fool the
rest of the scientific community.
You primary point is one I've noted multiple times - we lose nothing if
we fight the pollution (in fact, Germany has proven that an economy can
thrive) but if we do nothing and it's only half as bad as we expect,
then the human race is in trouble.
And the worst part is that the poor are the ones that will suffer the
most in the short term.
:\
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:13:35 -0800 (PST), spick <...@gmail.com
On Dec 10, 12:54 pm, Uncle Mose <...@gmail.com
In essence, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:28:16 -0800 (PST), Percy Q <...@gmail.com
Piotr:
Thank you for crafting that response so well. I read this group in
spite of myself most times. Fascination of the horrible I guess, but
I live in hope of the few on this group like yourself who offered
considered opinion.
It's worth adding to your response that the IPCC (International Panel
on Climate Change) was/is composed of over a thousand scientists
representing international governments. Not corporations. Not
special interest groups. Governments.
And those governments knew they would be on the hook if Climate Change
was confirmed. So, if anything, they'd prefer a rosy report from the
IPCC. If there was a bias, it would be towards denying climate
change.
The actual report from IPCC was the lowest common agreement of all the
scientists. In fact, a large number of scientists felt the report was
too watered down in its final form. Many of those scientists resigned
from the panel because they feel the true dire consequences of the
global study were not presented to the world at large. Nor does the
report represent the full impact of their individual studies and they
chose to resign instead of endorsing the report as presented.
It appears those resigned scientists may be correct, as witnessed by
the more rapid melting of arctic ice, antartic ice, and glaciers.
Not to mention the Northwest Passage. It was clear of year-old ice in
early July this year, but was congested by the melting of thousands-
year-old ice. First time ever. Several years ago, it was remarkable
if the NWP cleared at all.
On a personal note, I have to ask, "Just where does everybody think
all our smoke and carbon goes?". In relation to the size of the
planet, our atmosphere is about the relative size of a sheet of
celophane and we've been dumping our exhausts into it ever since the
beginning of the industrial revolution.
Do the trees absorb it? Some, yes, but we've been slagging those down
for just as long. But even the trees are inadequate, because we've
been taking the carbon stored deep in the ground and using that
energy. That energy, as far as the planet was concerned, was safely
stored out of harms way for millons of years. The short answer to
"Where does the carbon go?" is simple. Most of it stays with us. And
the data supports that in no uncertain terms - we are carbon heavy and
still pumping it out.
I haven't heard a single serious scientist deny global worming. Nor
have I heard a single scientist understate it's impact on the planet.
I'm talking peer-reviewed scientists here.
Finally, how can anybody not trained in this science seriously subject
their own opinion as being superior? Like it or not, the people
who've chosen to be educated in this matter are unanimous in their
opinion. My God, that has to be good enough for us poor rabble.
Give it up people! The H1N1 vaccines were not a plot, and neither
are the findings of the IPCC. This planet is in trouble. You live on
this planet. Your children live on this planet.
Now - get to work and be part of the solution. Otherwise, you're part
of the problelm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:25:01 -0330, clouddreamer <...@nd.Reduce.now
Another post of rational, well stated thoughts. Thanks.
:]
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:39:20 -0800 (PST), Uncle Mose <...@gmail.com
On Dec 10, 4:28 pm, Percy Q <...@gmail.com
Another rational post. Well said. I'm a firm believer that we are
slowly but surley destroying the only home (planet) we have and
destroying it ever more quickly. I think some people must believe we
have the ability to move on to another planet once we have used up
this one. A thousand years into the future I wonder what will this
generation be known as? Generation destruction? The human race is
resiliant but how resiliant? Seems to me that greed is running this
planet into oblivion. Consume, consume, consume. Where does it end?
Slash and burn all the forest, rape the oceans clean and strip the
earth bare while making the air we breath unbreathable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:34:48 -0800 (PST), Uncle Mose <...@gmail.com
On Dec 7, 5:14 pm, Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
Good points Darryl but I am erring on the side of caution. I tend to
believe professional scientist. Especially when so many of them have
come to the same conclusion. It is quite feasible and more than likely
that 6 billion people on this planet are polluting the hell out of
this world. We are using up the earths resources at an alarming rate.
Then there is all the pollution. I remember crossing the Atlantic by
ship and out in the middle of nowhere seeing huge amounts of garbage,
mostly plastics. I remember being on an isolated beach on Baffin
Island and seeing so much garbage on the beaches that it sickened me.
This planet is warming as seen by the disappearance of the world
glaciers. I have seen this for myself. I was in Greenland a few times
in the early 80's and as you enter the capital Nuuk (formerly Gothab)
there are glaciers sweeping down to the sea. My last trip up there in
2000 saw that these glaciers have receded by a large amount. They
should not be melting in such a short time. A recent documentary on
CBC tells of how the Inuit have no word for Robin? Now all of a sudden
Robins are appearing in the Arctic. These are events that should take
thousands of years but have happened in my short lifetime.
So just ask the question. What if the scientist are indeed correct
and we continue to go on as usual? If they are wrong then what the
hell all will be ok but if they are right and we did nothing about it
then we are the generation that was stupid enough to tip the scales of
climate change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:01:49 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 8, 5:34 pm, Uncle Mose <...@gmail.com
all good points and some very informative life experiences for sure,
but ice ages and global catastrophes are not a new thing in the
evolution of this planet. and i for one would love to believe that the
regular joe can and will make a difference in the world in this area,
but it is the laughable antics such as this and the billions being
made by the lobby groups and "manipulaters of the truth that causes my
skepticism
thanks for all that info though
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:19:43 -0600, Don Shorock <...@shorock.com
One TV commentator describe "climategate" quite well:
"It's like when the prosecution decides to frame a guilty man."
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 08:24:17 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 8, 1:19 pm, Don Shorock <...@shorock.comi dont get it, splain??
thanks
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:47:34 -0600, Don Shorock <...@shorock.com
There's no need for scientists to doctor the information when the
information itself would make the point, just as there is no need for a
prosecutor to frame someone who is actually guilty.
In both cases, someone is doing something improper and unnecessary to
further a cause that doesn't need their help.
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:07:23 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 10, 6:47 pm, Don Shorock <...@shorock.com
well said and i agree fully, if of course there was any need to "fix
the numbers" then one is suspect of the need to "fix the numbers"
thanks
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:48:49 -0330, Snipe <...@hotmail.com
But...don't confuse me with facts right
Nope, but they were natural phenomenons...pouring billions of tons of
pollutants into the atmosphere world wide is not natural. Raping the
forests and oceans is not natural...BIG difference. It is these things
that have caused nature to become imbalanced. If you can't realize that
then there is something wrong with you.
Really! How?
Are you including yourself as one of those manipulators of the truth?
You really should.
snipe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:55:35 -0330, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
Is he including the energy companies who continue to make TRILLIONS as
long as they can keep confusing the public about climate change??
The energy sector spends BILLIONS in an attempt to debunk climate
change. You'd think with all that money, if they could come up with a
significant opposing point, it would be explored. They haven't and they
continue to spout "oh it's natural" or "Greenland used to be green" or
"the planet has been warmer before" blah blah blah.
This site addresses all of the deniers arguments that they've come
across and offers scientific responses that debunk them ALL:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Course, I don't expect Darryl to actually educate himself.
..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:54:56 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 8, 10:25 pm, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
yup that is y i said on BOTH sides of this issue
none of that money casused as much damage as teh fact that data was
manipulated and even changed by the "experts" on the other side of the
fence though
but i understand you defense of that , u need to believe that the lies
were true,
you need to believe that there have been global temperature spikes
ever yer for over a decade even though it isnt true and u cannot
believe that since 1998 in actual fact that there has only been tw uch
spikes and both have been since the earth was jolted on its axis by
that powerful underwater earthquake of early 2000's
thanks
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:22:28 -0330, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
P.S. The site has now added a detailed explanation of the email in question:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
It explains how the terms used in the email were scientific terms that
cna't be read in a vacuum like deniers are trying to do. Taken into
CONTEXT, the email is meaningless.
Climategate is just a last gasp by the energy industry to protect their
right to pollute this planet and its population into extinction.
..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:10:51 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 9, 1:52 pm, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
yes he said on BOTH sides of the issue
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:42:15 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"clouddreamer" <...@supernews.com...
The Tip of the Climategate Iceberg
The global-warming scandal is bigger than one email leak.
http://tinyurl.com/yj3cn44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:53:24 -0330, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
No longer exists. Climate gate, like all the other attempts by the
energy industry to convince you that there is a debate, has been
thoroughly debunked.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35184_Global_Warming_Nontroversy_of_the _Day
In fact, when you get to the crux of the conspiracy, it is laughable
that people are taking it seriously. Just another example of people
following without thinking.
No such thing as a global warming scandal.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is an energy industry funded think
tank.
..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:11:17 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 9, 2:23 pm, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
you are in total denial hahahah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:51:26 -0800 (PST), spick <...@gmail.com
Where is the deniers evidence that climate change isn't happening?
They will all say the climate change scientists are wrong, but I have
yet to see evidence of their own that disputes the cc data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:43:48 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"spick" <...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
As long as scientists like those at East Anglia, NASA and the NSF keep
hoarding data like criminals with something to hide, it's unlikely that
anyone outside those walls will be producing evidence either against global
warming nor otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:47:42 -0800 (PST), spick <...@gmail.com
On Dec 9, 3:13 pm, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
As noted by CD, the data is open and available. Happy reading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:22:43 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"spick" <...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 9, 3:13 pm, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
As noted by CD, the data is open and available. Happy reading.
Yes, that data is available. Now, tell me what data was used in the
undisclosed studies carried out by the above mentioned institutions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:07:53 -0800 (PST), spick <...@gmail.com
On Dec 9, 4:52 pm, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
Perhaps this article from Bob MacDonald will help shed light on the
issue?
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/quirks-blog/2009/11/climate_science_still_sound.ht ml
From said article:
Now, obviously climate scientists should not be attempting to suppress
research. But no such thing happened. One of the two papers to which
Dr. Jones was referring was hugely publicized, though it was widely
criticized by many scientists. The “hide the decline” comment referred
to a technical point about mixing two different kinds of data sets – a
point that was “hidden” in plain sight by being published in the
journal Nature 10 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:45:13 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"spick" <...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 9, 4:52 pm, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
Perhaps this article from Bob MacDonald will help shed light on the
issue?
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/quirks-blog/2009/11/climate_science_still_sound.ht ml
From said article:
Now, obviously climate scientists should not be attempting to suppress
research. But no such thing happened. One of the two papers to which
Dr. Jones was referring was hugely publicized, though it was widely
criticized by many scientists. The hide the decline comment referred
to a technical point about mixing two different kinds of data sets a
point that was hidden in plain sight by being published in the
journal Nature 10 years ago.
I think you need to go back and read the WSJ article. One paper does not
constitute full disclosure. Bob should have stopped with, "Now, obviously
climate scientists should not be attempting to suppress research."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:55:28 -0800 (PST), leafs <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 9, 3:47 pm, spick <...@gmail.com
But of course, to Brenda, Darryl et al., anything that goes counter to
their viewpoint is some vast conspiracy. Thousands of scientists all
over the world are forming one huge climate change cabal! Oh the
humanity!!!!!
Yeah, it does sound that ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:09:23 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"leafs" <...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 9, 3:47 pm, spick <...@gmail.com
But of course, to Brenda, Darryl et al., anything that goes counter to
their viewpoint is some vast conspiracy. Thousands of scientists all
over the world are forming one huge climate change cabal! Oh the
humanity!!!!!
Yeah, it does sound that ridiculous.
If you think myself and Darryl are espousing the same view here, then either
you haven't been following along or you really do have a reading
comprehension problem. The only thing that's ridiculous in this day and
age, is that anyone would be willing to blindly follow any cause without
demonstrating any interest in asking questions or holding people accountable
for misconduct. Here's a short article, only two pages long, from
yesterday's National Post. Perhaps, if you read it, you might begin to
realize that all is not as straight forward as some people would have you
believe:
http://tinyurl.com/ykgmr84
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:32:17 -0330, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
They rely on rhetoric, on cherry picking a single fact and presenting it
out of context and on the gullibility of the general public.
Every "excuse" they've come up with has been debunked thoroughly, but I
still come across people who spout those excuses as if they know what
they're talking about. "The climate has changed before" or "it's part of
the natural cycle" are the ones I come across the most. I challenge them
with the fact, for example, nature takes roughly 10,000 years to change
the global temperature by 1 degree C whereas we've done close to that in
less than a century.
The whole problem is people believing they know more than they do. I use
an analogy they can't argue with...that if 3000 oncologists told you
that chemotherapy was the best solution for your cancer, would you
listen to them or to the clerk at the Healthy Herb shop who tells you
that a root plant from Bolivia would cure you...who would you go with?
No different than climate change. Thousands of scientists agree. There
is not debate. In fact, at no point in history have so many scientists
in a single field agreed with a particular point.
Climate Change is a cancer. The question is, do you listen to thousands
of scientists who agree with that fact...or do you buy the herbs?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
:/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:50:04 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"clouddreamer" <...@supernews.com...
And when the three thousand oncologists finished talking would you then ask
them a few questions like, may I see my x-ray, please? And if they refused,
would you not be sceptical about whether you, indeed, had cancer at all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:59:17 -0800 (PST), zippybear <...@gmail.com
On Dec 9, 3:23 pm, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
Like Kyoto, any agreements or targets agreed upon at Cohenhagen will
be non-binding and missed when the deadline comes around. The real
question, is what massive event will trigger a change in attitude and
behaviour on our part? I'm putting my money on flooding of low-lying
land masses and never before seen refugee migration that will follow.
It will take millions dying, and millions more displaced by a
catastrophe before we even consider rethinking our wasteful practices
in this world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:38:58 -0330, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
You're most likely right. It's going to take something massive and
undeniable to change attitudes. It's unfortunate that the poor of the
world are the ones who are going to suffer before people wake up.
The future will look back on this time and wonder how people were so
gullible...accepting the BS excuses created by the energy industry so
that they can continue to line their pockets.
Imagine. We're threatening millions, even billions of lives because of
plain and simple greed.
Well, the recession proved that one doesn't need an imagination to
understand how greed can so easily destroy so much.
..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:48:36 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 9, 3:23 pm, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
how do we know that the data hasnt been fixed htere as well...yousee
the delimma created??
thanks
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:54:38 -0800 (PST), spick <...@gmail.com
On Dec 9, 3:48 pm, Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
No, I don't. There are thousands of scientists from around the world
compiling data over decades. And you think they are all in collusion
to falsely claim climate change is real? Now who is wearing the tin
foil hat?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:32:37 -0330, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
The simple fact of the matter is that those same scientists, using that
same data, made a number of predictions over the last 30 years.
They're coming true.
Does Darryl think the scientists are up in the Arctic every summer with
blow torches melting the Arctic ice at an unnaturally accelerating rate?
http://www.realclimate.org/images/bitz_fig2.jpg
;]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:00:53 -0800 (PST), Matt <...@gmail.com
I Couldn't have said it better myself! lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:45:11 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 9, 4:00 pm, Matt <...@gmail.com
yup
for sure
thanks
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:19:20 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"clouddreamer" <...@supernews.com...
And what about the data used in the climate change studies. You've seen
this data? You've had the opportunity to inspect the process by which
conclusions were reached? You know for a fact data was not inappropriately
manipulated to achieve desired results? This is all anyone is asking. The
opportunity to audit the studies from beginning to end. What is the problem
with that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:59:59 -0330, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
I'm not a climate scientist any more than I am an oncologist. I can no
more analyze that data than I can read an MRI. That's what the
scientists/oncologists are for.
The difference between the climate scientist's conclusions using this
data and those denying it is that the climate scientists are
peer-reviewed. You have thousands upon thousands of scientists
scrutinizing each other's work. Those denying it have yet to produce a
single solitary peer-reviewed document that debunks climate change.
Not one.
To think that thousands of climate scientists, university departments
and independent researchers all over the world would get together and
decide to defraud the population of this planet is absolutely ludicrous.
Do you honestly believe that that many professionals - THOUSANDS - would
put their credibility on the line???
No data was manipulated because data from all over the world is saying
the same thing. This raw data can be confirmed by independent weather
stations globally. Or do you think all of them have also gotten together
to defraud the population of this planet?
If their data was in any manipulated on a large scale to obtain a result
that is conforming to a specific conclusion, why have those trying to
debunk climate change not been able to produce evidence of this
manipulation???
(The email is not proof of any manipulation. My earlier link proved it
was a snippet of a single email taken out of context, with technical
language being applied to laymen thinking).
Once again, the ultimate proof that the data is sound is that their
conclusions are proving to be right. For example, the Arctic sea ice
melt was predicted over the last 30+ years - the only real question was
how fast. Initially, the data suggested it would remain intact until
2050. With more research and a better understanding of positive
feedback, it was revised to 2030. Now, it's 2015.
The scientists are not only right, they're astounded with how quickly it
is happening and fear positive feedback will continue to accelerate it
until it becomes uncontrollable.
As I've noted, it takes nature roughly 10,000 years to raise the temp by
1 C but we've almost done that in a century. CO2 rises by 120 ppm over a
50,000 year period naturally...<calculating400 years, give-r-take.
We are pumping 1 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere EVERY FOUR MONTHS!!!
The planet has a delicately balanced system of releasing CO2 and
absorbing it. We are tipping the balance in the wrong direction in
massive amounts.
If you have children, you owe it to them to educate yourself. Once you
truly understand the problem, you'll understand that what you claim is
simply not possible.
..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 20:43:47 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"clouddreamer" <...@supernews.com...
Excuse me? What I claim? Don't lump me in with the Mad Hater of Tinfoil
Hatters. For Christ's sake, give me more credit than that nitwit. Don't
confuse a debate about disclosure with a debate about whether or not global
warming is actually happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:51:59 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 9, 9:13 pm, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
hater of tinfoil hatters I love it
hilarious!!!!!!!!!!
and for the record you are right on as the link determines it is all
about disclosure, and money on both sides of this issue that causes
confusion and mistrust.....changing data for any reason is wrong ,
especially when the data that is being changed is at the core of the
issue
and the oldest trick in the book is then to jumble and murky the
waters even more with more data to try to make you forget about the
data that was changed in the first place, and the previous poster so
eloquently attempted to do
when the issue is the genuineness of the data and the proper
disclosure of that data that is the issue, not whether global warning
even exists.....
just a humble nitwits opinion hahah
i love the "hater of tin foil hatters" though
thanks
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:49:56 -0330, clouddreamer <...@nd.Reduce.now
I'm referring to your claim that the lack of disclosure has any meaning
to the debate. You're the one calling it a scandal. It isn't.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:53:28 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 10, 9:19 am, clouddreamer <...@nd.Reduce.now
do a search of your google, there are so many more calling this a
scandal than brenda i or any locals...you on the other hand say it is
not , hahah so i guess we will take your word for it
thanks
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:38:37 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"clouddreamer" <...@supernews.com...
I disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:07:29 -0330, clouddreamer <...@nd.Reduce.now
You've yet to prove otherwise. Just saying so does not make it a
scandal. I've back up all my points with objective cites.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:22:30 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"clouddreamer" <...@supernews.com...
You've done nothing more than try to trivialize the seriousness of the
situation by making lame excuses for poor conduct and deliberate concealment
of information that rightfully belongs to the public. You've proved
nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:33:42 -0330, clouddreamer <...@nd.Reduce.now
I've trivialized nothing. I proved that there was nothing there to start
with. You choose not to read the information. Instead, you rely on
conservative columnists to support your position.
Sorry. Doesn't work.
This planet is warming at an unnaturally accelerated rate. The data
predicted what is physically happening today. You can whine about the
perceived hidden information all you like. The fact remains they used
the data and predicted Arctic sea ice melt, massive methane release,
ocean acidfication, glacier calving and melt etc and it is happening.
You cannot deny that.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:59:57 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"clouddreamer" <...@supernews.com...
Yes, yes, I'm fully aware of the unsettling changes that are happening to
our planet, I don't live in a cave. That's still no reason to turn a blind
eye on scientists behaving badly. I tell you what. Let's just wait and see
if anything untoward is discovered when NASA and the CRU get around to fully
disclosing their data and research methods. If nothing, then I'm sure
you'll let us all know who won this argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:26:09 -0330, clouddreamer <...@nd.Reduce.now
<sighinformation was skewed. Read the link I provided. It explains that the
email was misunderstood. Nothing there indicates any information was
skewed. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
You're listening to conservative columnists, not the objective
scientific community who have looked at the email and explained what the
terms mean.
The terms do not mean the information was manipulated by scientists
behaving badly. You're drawing conclusions based on false information.
And there's no argument to win. The predictions made based on that data
are coming true. Why are you choosing to ignore that?
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:34:37 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"clouddreamer" <...@supernews.com...
Look, I've read your links and excuse me, but I'm still sceptical. There's
a lot of people out there right now trying to handle damage control, they're
not above telling little white lies for the "greater good". I'm interested
in knowing the truth. That's all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:27:14 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"clouddreamer" <...@supernews.com...
So what? Is there something wrong with asking questions? It was the
inquiries of an ordinary citizen that prompted NASA's Goddard Institute to
correct its temperature records. Of course it's a scandal. The public is
being denied access to the data used in publicly funded studies. It's
ridiculous!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:51:51 -0800 (PST), Piotr <...@gmail.com
First, the ethics – all it is based on the BREAK-IN and THEFT of
private emails. This means that anybody using the content of the
stolen letters to advance their own agenda is profiting from the crime
and by doing so, legitimizes the burglary. That's why courts throw out
evidence acquired illegally - to do otherwise would be to reward
breaking the law.
Second, the cherry-picking: we are talking about emails cherry-picked
out of 10 years of correspondence. If I broke into your computer and
search through 10 years of your private emails I can guarantee I would
find some things to make you look bad, even if you were Mother Teresa.
Third, the dishonesty of using the few bad apples to dismiss the works
of thousands of others: We are talking about emails of 3 or 4 people.
Out of many thousands doing research or peer reviewing the IPCC
research. All other methods and other data DO NOT depend on the data
of these 3 or 4 scientists, yet all these independent studies point in
the same direction. If anything, the sea level rise and the decline of
the Arctic ice happen much FASTER than those predicted based on models
using the data in question.
Fourth, seeing the straw in the eye of others, not noticing the log in
your own: Where are your scientific papers, dear sceptics? Where is
your comprehensive, supported by multiple lines of evidence, theory?
All you do is to cherry-pick issues, take a snipe here or there, and
to offer the logic with holes you could drive a truck through. Yet the
onus of the proof, is on you, not on us. It is those advocating adding
CO2 to atmosphere, the climate sceptics, the Big Oil, the Big Coal,
the Big Auto. who have to prove this change is harmless, not the other
way around.
Finally, people who take delight in the word "Climate-gate" want to
paint the climate science with the brush of disrepute of the
perpetrators of Watergate. But if you look closer, it is the climate
"sceptics", not climate scientists, who are more like Nixon, who, if
you remember, hoped to get political advantage from burglarizing the
files of their opponents. Unfortunately, there is a fundamental
difference in how the media and the public reacted to the burglary
then and now: 35 years ago we didn't discuss what was in the
Democrat's files the burglars were after, we went after the burglars
and those behind them. Today - we vilify the targets of the theft and
let the burglars and those profitting from the burglary, go
unexamined and unchallenged.
So are those who stand to profit? Well, look at the timing - the
emails were made public in weeks leading to the crucial conference on
climate change in Copenhagen. Planting the seed of doubt is all the
petro-states like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and increasingly, Canada
under the prime minister Harper, need to say: “look, we can't commit
to anything, the science is wide open, we need more time to study”. So
isn't that interesting that the emails written over the last 10 years
were released ... just right now. Coincidence? Hmm.
Piotr Trela
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:12:01 -0800 (PST), Uncle Mose <...@gmail.com
On Dec 10, 1:51 pm, Piotr <...@gmail.com
Well said indeed!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:35:43 -0800 (PST), Not Sure <...@gmail.com
On Dec 10, 8:51 am, Piotr <...@gmail.com
That's nice, especially the way you capitalize "BREAK-IN" and "THEFT."
That'll keep those pesky facts from revealing themselves :)
This means that anybody using the content of the
Like you and your ilk wouldn't be spreading the emails all over the
world if they revealed obfuscation and deception in order to *hide*
global warming.
Which does nothing to change the content of the emails in question.
"But your honor, on every other day of the month in which my client
committed the crime, he was a law-abiding citizen."
Utter garbage. The vast majority of the global warming fanatics have
neither done the research, nor have the intellectual or scientific
heft to understand the climate data in question. They take it at face
value because they want to believe it. There's no difference between
their faith-based beliefs and those who attend church every Sunday.
Secondly, claiming thousands of unnamed scientists somehow agree with
your position doesn't suddenly invalidate the very specific examples
brought up in the emails. Stop relying on mob mentality because those
emails can't be explained away.
Wrong. Global warming hyenas are the ones screaming that the world is
coming to an end. They're required to prove this ridiculous charge.
Which, again, doesn't suddenly magically make the content of those
emails disappear. Sorry.
True. It does tend to put a kibosh on the clowns who want to tell us
all how to live, what to drive, what to eat, and pretty much control
our lives. Their plans to idiotically destroy jobs and rob hundreds of
billions from taxpayers are going to face an uphill battle as well.
Planting the seed of doubt is all the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:17:31 -0330, clouddreamer <...@nd.Reduce.now
Very very well said.
:)
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:36:18 -0800 (PST), Not Sure <...@gmail.com
On Dec 10, 9:47 am, clouddreamer <...@nd.Reduce.now
It was certainly superior to anything that ever belched out of your
fat ass. Maybe you should rely on others to do the talking in the
future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:51:54 -0330, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
They're not asking questions. They're manipulating answers to suit their
agenda.
Much like the tobacco industry's manipulation of the argument that
cigarettes and second hand smoke cause cancer and other ailments. In
fact, one of the scientists employed by the tobacco industry to say that
second hand smoke was harmless, Fred Singer, now works for the energy
industry to say that climate change isn't real.
Gee. From being an expert on smoking to an expert on climate. (It should
be noted that he tried to predict the climate impact of the Kuwaiti oil
fires and was wrong):
http://aroundthekeg.blogspot.com/2008/01/debunking-debunkers-who-are-full-of.ht ml
It was the
The changes were made to US data only. The same problem didn't affect
the climate stations in the other 98% of the world's land mass. Fixing
the data discrepancy (thanks to Y2K) was negligible in the global
environment.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm
Of course it's a scandal.
Can you prove that? Even with billions of dollars, the energy sector has
been unable to offer anything that proves otherwise.
The public is
The public is not being denied access to anything. The climate data is
out there, both raw and processed:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:32:56 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"clouddreamer" <...@supernews.com...
Really, Nasa is about to be sued, East Anglia's CRU director refuses to
release data because he's afraid someone will find something wrong with it
and the NSF just doesn't feel like disclosing the methods behind their
research. Oh yeah, it's all out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:18:39 -0330, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
They're not worried. As I pointed out, the earlier refusal to release it
was a copyright issue that had to be addressed before the information
was disclosed.
And, once again, it's only one of thousands reporting data. I provided
links to many many more that have been available for viewing for years.
If they all showed a decline in temperatures, the well-funded deniers
would be on it like hungry wolves.
But they don't.
..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:56:13 -0330, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
OMG...that would be pretty funny if it weren't so sad. Maybe she should
visit the Alaskan communities that are being forced to move because
perma-frost that they were built on is melting.
..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:11:36 -0330, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
No. They will not release the information because of a copyright issue.
Check the FOI request.
What you're doing is cherry picking a complaint and refusing to
acknowledge the greater picture. The climate data is out there and
easily accessible. One station refusing to release data is irrelevant.
It's one location out of tens of thousands. Even if its data was proving
a cooling trend, it would be negligible in the final result.
As for the lawsuit, I already told you that it's an energy industry
funded think tank behind it. A lawsuit is proof of nothing. Absolutely
nothing. It's a fishing expedition riding the wave of this email
incident in which they hope that just filing the lawsuit will leave the
impression that climate data is being manipulated. Of course, we'll hear
nothing of this in the future as it gets thrown out or proves that NASA
data is sound.
One has to wonder why they're not suing the entire global climate
research community...because to prove that climate change isn't real
means questioning ALL data, not just that with NASA. They're only one
cog in a much much larger wheel.
..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 20:49:36 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"clouddreamer" <...@supernews.com...
And yet, one has to wonder why anyone would have to wait two years and
threaten a lawsuit just to acquire climate study information from NASA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:58:35 -0330, clouddreamer <...@nd.Reduce.now
Does NASA provide all it's research data to the public?
Again, it's irrelevant. NASA is only one of THOUSANDS collecting data
used to draw conclusions. There are bigger issues at state like the
copyright and classification issues that have to be addressed before
data can be released.
Tell me, have you found all the research data associated with every drug
you've ever taken? Doubt you'll find it all online and freely available
like so much of the climate data.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:16:38 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"clouddreamer" <...@supernews.com...
"The CRU and GISS -- NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- are two
of the four major repositories of temperature records in the world, the only
two that show continuing warming and the two that the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relies on for its forecasts of
disaster."
http://tinyurl.com/ykgmr84
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:26:08 -0330, clouddreamer <...@nd.Reduce.now
You need to stop reading "opinion" columns written by Alberta based
conservatives and start reading stuff written by scientists. The CRU and
GISS get their information from thousands of reporting stations worldwide.
Do you think they would have taken the data and changed it without
someone at one of those stations crying foul???
Why are you still refusing to acknowledge that predictions based on
those numbers are coming true????
My earlier link proved that the CRU had not skewed data. You had layman
reading scientific terms and not understanding what they said.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:03:53 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"clouddreamer" <...@supernews.com...
You missed my point. You've been trying to make NASA and the CRU sound as
if they're insignificant among thousands when, if fact, they are two of only
four major players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:28:55 -0330, clouddreamer <...@nd.Reduce.now
I understood your point completely. You're basing your conclusions on
false information and rhetoric from conservative columnists.
They get their information from thousands and compile it. Again, do you
think they could get away with manipulating all that data over the past
few decades and not have a single reporting station complain that the
information was changed?????
And once again, the predictions they made using that data ARE COMING
TRUE. Why do you choose to ignore that????
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:44:23 -0330, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
"clouddreamer" <...@supernews.com...
You know, Cloud, you repeat yourself a lot. But repeating something doesn't
make it anymore valid. Stop getting yourself all worked up. We'll all know
whether numbers were fudged or not within the coming months, so why keep
going on about it if you know you'll be proven right in the end, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:09:27 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 10, 8:14 pm, "Brenda" <...@nf.sympatico.ca
a darn good retort
well done
thanks
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:51:06 -0330, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
I repeat it because you ignore it. You ignore it because it proves that
the data is real.
We already know the numbers were not fudged. The current state of the
environment proves it beyond a doubt. The email proved absolutely nothing.
You've also ignored the fact that the hackers have only released one
email out of thousands. Why? Because this one used scientific terms that
the uneducated public will lap up like lemmings. The "trick" and "hide
the decline" terms are scientific, not laymen.
You've also ignored the fact that the temperature records are only one
of many indicators of climate change. The CO2 levels, ocean
acidification, methane release, coral bleaching, weather pattern
changes, perma-frost thaw, ocean level rise, treeline advancement north,
melting glaciers, slowing Gulf Stream, Arctic sea ice disappearance etc
etc are all indicators that have nothing to do with temperature records.
The temperature records support all this as they stand. It's a simple
correlation, but you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your
wish that climate change isn't real.
You've ignored basic scientific method employed by the scientific
community which make it impossible for them to have fudged the numbers
over the past few decades. Impossible. We're not talking about the
Herbal Shop clerk pandering a root to cure cancer. We're talking about
the oncologists who've used chemotherapy for decades. Do you need to see
their research to know that chemo works?
You've ignored the scientific community and run to conservative
columnists in an attempt to convince yourself that there is something
there when there is not. It's absurd, absolutely absurd, that you'd
think THOUSANDS of scientists are colluding to defraud the population of
this planet. To what end? What do they gain? Nothing. They are paid
regardless of what their research shows.
I can tell you want the energy sector gains - the continued existence of
their industry and lining their pockets with trillions while threatening
the very existence of mankind. Greed is going to make this world a much
different place to live in over the next few decades.
I think that scares you and you'll grasp at anything to convince
yourself that it isn't true. I've been there. When I first learned of
"global warming" a decade ago, I researched it to convince myself that
it wasn't true, that it was something our generation didn't have to
worry about, but the more I read, the more it became all too obvious
that it was not only happening, but was a threat to the current generation.
This was long before An Inconvenient Truth.
It is real. Repeating it doesn't make it any less real.
..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:22:18 -0800 (PST), Not Sure <...@gmail.com
On Dec 10, 5:21 pm, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
You repeat because you're incapable of assimilating the devastating
and invincible facts of those who dismantle your "arguments." At this
point, you're maybe a step or two above a crying toddler throwing a
tantrum because their parents won't buy them a new toy. But continue
dancing, it's certainly entertaining to the rest of us. :)
You ignore it because it proves that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:04:01 -0800 (PST), Percy Q <...@gmail.com
In following all the posts, it is clear that the positions held are
held firmly by each individual, whatever their persuasion.
In the past within my extended family, I've pushed too hard on this
matter and gained nothing but hard feelings. At this point, I've
realized that the battle to moderate our effect on climate doesn't
need everybody on board. Just like in politics, opposition is useful
and informative. Many times, a well thought opposition produced
better legislation/solutions. That said, the conspiracy theory just
isn't rational. Those who claim it is, can not be dissuaded. So be
it - doesn't change the facts I've researched and know - and I'll
carry on with my efforts and encourage positive action at any level
possible. There are far more believers than dissenters, and that's
all we need.
Question the facts? Of course, but let's keep it rational. Those who
believe in the conspiracy want to believe in the conspiracy. Let's
move on and encourage the solutions.
I'm heartened at the resolutions surfacing from European governments
that were announced this morning. They are contribuing Billions of $$
$ to aid poorer countries to affect climate moderation. Overall, they
hope to garner 250 Billion Dollars between all the participating
countries to make this happen. The obvious first target is to protect
the rain forest by supplementing/replacing the income that comes from
denuding this region. That's committment, but it's only the
beginning.
I'm hoping our governments actually get the message this time
around. Right now, these are the people who need to hear the issue
the clearest. The rest may, or may not, follow. We can't change
that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:48:35 -0330, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
I respond to the posts not so much to convince the person who I'm
responding to, but to ensure that someone on the fence and/or willing to
take the time to understand the problem doesn't look at the denier's
point of view and think "well, maybe it isn't real." If they're willing
to understand, they can follow my reasoning and links and realize that
the denier's don't have a leg to stand on.
One would hope that the day doesn't come in which they have no choice
but accept that we are destroying the habitability of this planet, but
more and more, I have fewer doubts that that day will come. The big
question is what will it be.
:/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:19:42 -0800 (PST), Not Sure <...@gmail.com
On Dec 11, 9:18 am, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
That's very pragmatic since you couldn't convince someone who was on
fire to jump into a lake. At least you're recognizing your huge
limitations.
These emails gave the "deniers" plenty of legs to stand on, and your
hilarious refusal to acknowledge that is making you sound more
incoherent and inconsistent than usual. So congratulations on that
"accomplishment."
Of course the day won't come since "we" aren't destroying the planet's
habitability. And thanks to those leaked emails, less and less people
are buying into your alarmist hysteria. Thanks for continuing to do
our work for us ;)
but
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:30:41 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 11, 2:18 pm, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
again, u are either deliberately refusing to acknowledge that brenda
isnt saying "it isnt real" she is saying she is uncomfortable with the
disclosure and cloak and dagger theme being played out. She also
makes a valid point that as it plays out we will all see if the data
was indeed distorted and if indeed the temperature has not spiked as
we are all being told.
u need to step out from behind a tree cus u cant see the forest. you
also need to give more listening power to brendas points ,they are
valid, and they are not "saying it isnt real"
thanks
Darryl
someone reply to this so that cloud will see it
hehe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:10:58 -0800 (PST), zippybear <...@gmail.com
On Dec 11, 2:30 pm, Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
Sure, why not... I'll reply so she can see it ;-)
I'll also throw in my 2 cents that anyone believing the rhetoric
generated by some ill-gotten emails should have their heads examined.
There is no conspiracy to cover up manipulated data. If you can't see
this for what it really is... an effort by big business (polluters) to
cast doubt on climate change evidence in order to save their bottom
line, then you're as thick as a brick.
Big business doesn't need to give people a reason to doubt climate
change anyhow. Far more people prefer to leave their blinders on, or
just don't give a fuck. Myself included. Every Tim Hortons coffee I
buy contributes to the problem. How long will all those plastic tops
be a part of our environment? I work with computers and
electronics... how much of that crap is dumped into garbage pits every
day? Did I really need to replace my CRT monitor with an LCD, only to
have the old monitor become garbage? And that is just the tip of the
iceberg. Think of all the plastics and non-recyclable crap that we
use on a daily basis, or is used on our behalf to maintain our
lifestyle. Hell we even buy our water in plastic bottles now-a-days,
and are told not to reuse the bottles because of toxins that can be
leached out of the plastics and find their way into our bodies. When
is the last time your toaster-oven was repaired? It wasn't... you
throw it out and get a new one because finanically, it's cheaper.
Look at the recent tire announcement by the gov't. Moving the tires
from one location to another now constitutes recycling? Last time I
checked, my floor was still dirty if I swept all the debris under the
rug.
The little changes we attempt to make in our lives to reduce our
insatiable consumption of materials are not enough. I figured if I
stopped buying microwavable lunches it would make a difference. That
way, less plastic disposable containers and packaging would make it's
way to landfills... but you know what? It doesn't mean jack-shit.
It's too small a drop in the bucket to resolve the other side of the
massive equation that is my carbon footprint. How can 250 less
plastic lunch containers (on average per year) offset the billions of
pepsi bottles people go through, or the unimaginable damage of a
tailing pond like Sandy Pond?
They can't... so we may as well enjoy the indulging while we can, and
take it on the chin when the unavoidable ecological disaster comes our
way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:59:05 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 11, 3:10 pm, zippybear <...@gmail.com
i agree, all that the panic and chicken little's alarms are doing
nothing significantly to solve the perceived problem.
And, as long as there is huge dollars being made and spent on both
sides of this argument , then the arguing will go on and nothing will
still be done...so whats the point.
i have my swirly lightbulbs
i put a power bar on my microwave so i save the energy needed spent on
the clock
we recycle our plastics
my next vehicle will be a hybrid, when they become affordable
we are monitoring our electricity so stringently that we are saving 60
bux a month
i dont idle as much as i used to
and guess what...
if we all did the same things, it wouldnt change a thing....
period...
the money will still be spent on both sides of this argument, the
naysayers will say nay and the chicken little will still tell us that
the sky is falling
first it was the ozone layer, then smog, then noise now this.....it
just keeps the economy for both sides going for years and years to
come....
and the shadow of fixing the numbers just casts even a worse shadow on
it.
then you got everyone and their daughter making a website to support
their side of the argument i am sure you could find a site that cites
that the water is purple and there would be some scientific data to
support that too
it is all overwhelming,
oops can i get plonked twice by the same person??
hehe
thanks
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:49:13 -0330, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
Couldn't say it better myself.
;]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:44:58 -0800 (PST), zippybear <...@gmail.com
On Dec 11, 3:19 pm, clouddreamer <...@save.money.too
Listening to this one right now from George Carlin... he sums it up
pretty well :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:06:12 -0800 (PST), Darryl Harding <...@hotmail.com
On Dec 11, 4:44 pm, zippybear <...@gmail.com
SAVE THE PLANET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE PLANET IS DOING GREAT!!!!!
THE PLANET HAS BEEN HERE 4.5 BILLION YEARS!!!!
THE PLANET HAS BEEN A LOT WORTH THAN WE EVERY COULD DO TO IT!!!!!!!!
i love it
hilarious
great link
thanks
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|