Thread: Climategate!

Perhaps it may be useful to keep in mind all the hullaballou about the CRU pertains to exactly one information-gathering entity. The work done by others (i.e. NOAA, etc) has not been implicated in the so-called scandal. So even if you were to totally disregard the work done by CRU, you'd still be left with a humongous body of work by the other organizations, which points in the same direction.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Interesting that as their agenda did not advance as they desperately hoped in the past decade and as the years went by and an undeniable cooling became more obvious, then about two years ago their stance became - 'ya, but it is going to start warming in about twenty years'.

Come on - what a load of crap. The devout defenders are just in denial.

And now these blockheads have supposedly deleted or lost data. They don't have the basic intelligence to have multiple backups of data yet they want you to believe that they have this 'special' intelligence to determine things which will end up implementing procedures which will regulate our lives.

Puhleeeeze!

Just one small problem...even if they haven't been progressively warmer each and every year (global warming theory does not exclude the influence of counter-factors) the last 12 years ending in 2008 have in fact been the warmest on record. Sorry to spoil your "facts" Temperature record since 1880 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ya, the direction that it points is that it's not getting warmer. Like we actually need someone to tell us that.

Ya, wikipedia, like they are honest unbiased and don't have an agenda either. That's a good one, a real howl.

Oh come on you really are not this naive right????


Ok let's try at something really simple... Pollution is BAD...

Duuuuhhhhhhhhh Thank you we needed Billions in grants to tell us this???

Taxing or charging everyone into 3rd world starvation status is a bad thing too...

Why aren't we making plastic water bottles illegal????? maybe we could get rid of the floating plastic island the size of Texas in the Pacific????
But that would not create new taxes, would it?? hmmm maybe they could do that , at least we "KNOW" that exists. We don't need any scientists with bogus science to tell us that needs to be gone... Do we???

This is only about moving money from the rich to the poor....nothing else..

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 - Telegraph

what say you?........

Well, yeah I agree wikipedia isn't a great source. But agenda? Hell, I can modify wikipedia. That's like saying that a milk crate situated on a street corner has an agenda.

That page actually looks to be quite well cited, so if you want to argue agenda, you're best taking it up with the sources, which from a cursory glance appears to be the NOAA.

Come on G, I can't believe you.

They are just selfessly looking out for our well being. (NOT)

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Just one small problem...even if they haven't been progressively warmer each and every year (global warming theory does not exclude the influence of counter-factors) the last 12 years ending in 2008 have in fact been the warmest on record. Sorry to spoil your "facts" Temperature record since 1880 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You want graphs? I can get you graphs. First a repeat of the one in the Wikipedia article but from a different source. Pretty much agrees with WikiPedia:

Next, extend that back a few years and see what happens to the warming trend:


Note both of these are from the same source: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project.

I agree that the last 10 years is too short a period to make anything out of. Depending on how few points back you include you can get any trend you want. The question is, are any of those trends beyond historical trends?

Originally Posted by IanS

Well, yeah I agree wikipedia isn't a great source. But agenda? Hell, I can modify wikipedia. That's like saying that a milk crate situated on a street corner has an agenda.

That page actually looks to be quite well cited, so if you want to argue agenda, you're best taking it up with the sources, which from a cursory glance appears to be the NOAA.

Ya, sadly wouldn't trust them either.