Also, If you don’t believe in global warming anymore, what pushed you over the edge?
News and comments on global climate change, global warming and greenhouse effect
News and comments on global climate change, global warming and greenhouse effect
Also, If you don’t believe in global warming anymore, what pushed you over the edge?
For many it’s like a religion. For some it’s a means to force other people to conform to their will. For governments, it’s a means to tax and control the people. Check out the links below…
global warming is a religion to these people. They are not going to look at reality.
I believe their honest response will be something like "Infidel!! Off with his head!"
It’s probably because they want CO2 reductions even if they don’t affect the global climate to any significant degree. And there’s a list of several reasons for that which I and others have mentioned in the past.
And as I also have mentioned, if there a particular side effect of CO2 reductions that is desired, then there should be a specific policy for that not an all encompassing one that is inefficient, expensive and harmful.
There is a reason Greenland was called Greenland in the first place.
That is because a thousand years ago It was nice green and lush.
now it is a slowly melting iceball.
There is more to it than just cow farts and emission ratings on cars
how about not commuting half way accross the state for a job just cause it pays a buck more an hour for something you could do locally
I think the answer is because it is written in 3rd AL 21:14 ‘in that time there will be believers and nonbelievers,do not let the deniers speak, if they do speak, shout louder,demean them,destroy all damaging data,lie,lie and lie some more,just say Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck’
Because taking about a half dozen emails out of context and misrepresenting what 3 or 4 climate scientists said over a period of 13 years doesn’t change anything. Atmospheric CO2 is still increasing, the planet is still warming, sea ice and ice sheets are still melting, glaciers are still receding, sea levels are still rising, and so on.
The fact that a climate scientist used the word "trick" in an email doesn’t change any of that.
For the same reason Global Warming supporters still believe in global warming even after an extended period of global cooling–They’re deluded.
Global Warming supporters still believe in global warming even after Climategate because they are psuedo scientific charlatans living in a state of historical denial. What a sad day for science!!
Here we have a few tidbits form the hundreds of e mails and documents…
From Michael E. Mann (witholding of information / data):
Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.
From Nick McKay (modifying data):
The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?
From Tom Wigley (acknowleding the urban effect):
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
From Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
From Michael Mann (truth doesn’t matter):
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page–Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.
From Phil Jones (witholding of data):
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! … The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
From Michael E. Mann (using a website to control the message, hide dissent):
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.
From Phil Jones (witholding of data):
If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.
If the emails and documents are a forgery, it would be an extremely large one that would likely have taken months to setup. No doubt much more will be coming out about these emails and their possible authenticity. Stay tuned to the Climate Change Examiner for updates as more information becomes available.
Global warming/climate change (GW/CC) has been sold as a religion. The "science" behind GW/CC is based on emotion, faith and what are to be irrefutable edicts. Hell, GW/CC even has it’s own creation myth/Christ figure of sorts (see Svante Arrhenius). If your religion comes under attack, the response is to "kill the messenger." Therefore, the e-mails in question are meaningless because they didn’t come directly from the source and they were "obviously" (!?!) manipulated. This rationale tends to negate the principle behind the criminal justice system in most Western countries… but whatever. Infidels are to be scorned and silenced.
GW/CC is first and foremost based on emotion. That’s why Al Gore NEEDS polar bears to be endangered. What the hell is gonna stir up emotion more than an adorable, furry, white mammal in distress? Won’t that be great on a poster, bumper sticker or in a video. Too bad there are more polar bears now than at any time man has bothered to count them. Once again… whatever.
I am for clean air, clean water, clean soil and untainted food. I am not for lies and faith allowing others to impose their will upon me. I thought there was a seperation of church and state…
For a good laugh (or cry… whatever), check this out:
http://www.cosum.org/ten_commandments.html
VS
http://forthardknox.com/2007/08/23/the-10-commandments-of-global-warming/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-land-sfc-mntp&year=2009&month=10&ext=gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=10&submitted=Get+Report
Once someone believes in something it takes time for them to accept it if the factors change the other way no matter what it is. I becomes their world view and they will try very hard to look at only the subject that supports their view. Weather global temps go up or down, if it is against what someone believes about global warming they will not acept it for a long time. There will always be evidence on the internet supporting global warming and global cooling. That is why I don’t understand why the ramdom links to websites that others have put together are always on these answers. Anyone can put a page together supporting or disproving global warming.
The only thing I can say is none of these people have no idea where global temperatures will go in the future. None of them, not even me.
Most of the people who see Climategate and still support man made global warming do so because of 2 main reasons.
It is like a religion to them Al-Gore has even said it is his new religion and his next movie is going to be talking a bout it as a religion and same as his last book.
They have spent years fighting "CO2" and don’t want to think they have wasted such a large part of Their life’s