HELLBLAZER PANIC TITLE. IPCC USES BUNK RESEARCH, CLIMATE CHANGE DOESN'T EXIST

Refrozen

Refrozen

123456789 123456789 (123)
Dec 6, 2006
1,607
22
0
Houses
www.refrozen.com
Gordon Crovitz: The Web Discloses Inconvenient Climate Truths - WSJ.com

The panel, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, now faces the inconvenient truth that it relied on scientists who violated scientific process. In one email, the Climate Research Unit's director, Phil Jones, wrote Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, promising to spike studies that cast doubt on the relationship between human activity and global warming. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," he said. He pledged to "keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another email exhange, Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Jones: "This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature.' Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

 Other emails include one in which Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit told Mr. Mann that "I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same," and in which Mr. Jones said he had employed Mr. Mann's "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. A May 2008 email from Mr. Jones with the subject line "IPCC & FOI" asked recipients to "delete any emails you may have had" about data submitted for an IPCC report. The British Freedom of Information Act makes it a crime to delete material subject to an FOI request; such a request had been made earlier that month.
 


This is my favorite. "I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same."


I'm also pretty stoked that wickedfire thinks "block chinese and korean visitors" is related to this.
 
I'm bumping this because I'm seriously disappointed in you guys and the rest of the world for not giving this story the attention it deserves. These guys seriously are publishing "science" that they were fearful of revealing the data behind -- that's pretty problematic when said science is being used to mentally fund pro-interventionist propaganda and movements worldwide, not to mention being used to implement programs that are guaranteed to contribute to the starvation of people in poorer countries.

There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"



In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "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!"


At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming
Click to expand...
 
siren.gif
Liberals Deny Emails,
siren.gif

Talk in Condescending Fashion​


maybe that will help. this actually is a huge deal, but most of the media is ignoring it, or being very condescending about it which is concerning
 
I still have no idea what to think about the whole global warming thing. i know we're being lied to about most of it but i still consider both valid possibilities.

I do have a couple questions though that i'm yet to hear any real answers to.

if anyone feels like enlightening me:
1.They talk about the polar ice caps melting and always show pictures of big ice chunks breaking off into the ocean, but I understand that ice builds up in the polar region then pushes the rest of the ice out till it reaches warmer waters and melts in a big cycle of sorts. Yet they say the temperatures at the poles are rising causing the melting. When the melting temperatures of ice are anything above 0'c and both polar ice caps are around -25'c to -45'c how exactly is it possible that they are melting even if they do say they are raising in temperature every year?

2. They say green house gasses caused by chlorofluorocarbons are making the ozone thicker causing the greenhouse effect which is causing the earths temperatures to rise. Then they're saying the chlorofluorocarbons are eating away at the ozone making more sunlight get in causing the earths temperatures to rise. Which fucking one is it?! They seem contradictory and yet they both have their places in any antiglobalwarming arguments that come up. I watched inconvenient truth and it seemed when he would be arguing one point he'd use one explanation then magically switch to the other the moment he was refuting a different argument. It definitely didn't sit right with me.

3. The antiglobal warming peeps say the earth goes in cycles from ice ages to volcanic ages and the earth at the moment is on a natural temperature rise, but the only graphs i've seen have been from global warming advocates and the data immediately stops at the lowest point and never shows more then 2 degrees of rise. Where is the rest of the graphs from the antiglobalwarming ppl they keep talking about?

4. Both sides seem to be using a lot of carbon dating to prove their points in amounts of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere growing or not growing over the years. A) isn't the point of carbon dating is that carbon release is always meassurably steady? B) What the hell does amounts of carbon have to do with carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide? It's like they're treating me like a complete idiot pretending i don't know the fuckin difference. Are we just victims of them dumbing down the data too far or is there an actual connection?
 
papajohn56 said:
siren.gif
Liberals Deny Emails,
siren.gif

Talk in Condescending Fashion​


maybe that will help. this actually is a huge deal, but most of the media is ignoring it, or being very condescending about it which is concerning
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm seriously in a bit of a mindfuck how more people aren't freaking out about this. And I decided to leave the big quote in there just to remain obnoxious about this.

@Eli; As a corollary to #4, I wish global warming-ists would stop talking about "carbon" levels, as though carbon isn't just a fucking atom.

3. The antiglobal warming peeps say the earth goes in cycles from ice ages to volcanic ages and the earth at the moment is on a natural temperature rise, but the only graphs i've seen have been from global warming advocates and the data immediately stops at the lowest point and never shows more then 2 degrees of rise. Where is the rest of the graphs from the antiglobalwarming ppl they keep talking about?
Click to expand...
To be fair, if you trust the methods used by the climatologists, its clear we're in a serious statistical anomaly in terms of temperatures. I'm not disagreeing with the existence of global warming at all -- although, I'd say the science isn't even really clear on that (a lot is dependent on auxillary variables - like the growth of trees over the last 100,000 years and stuff that could have all kinds of other significant factors which cannot be demonstrated without a model of everything ever) -- but rather, that anthropogenic global warming is not clear, its effects not properly quantified and the response to it completely wrong.

Any antiglobalwarmingist talking about how we're just on a natural rise better have a good argument to go along with it; such as that the methods to plot the data in the past is inaccurate (which it probably is) or that something exogenous has changed. A lot of people talk about how "100 years" isn't enough data - and it isn't, I'm not even convinced the extrapolated 100,000 year models are enough data to say how things will be forever, ever with any reasonable confidence.
 
Refrozen said:
@Eli; As a corollary to #4, I wish global warming-ists would stop talking about "carbon" levels, as though carbon isn't just a fucking atom.
Click to expand...

they should be saying "CO2", the correct term. carbon itself is not at fault, but yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. even if the earth is warming, it has to be proven that humans did it, which is what these emails hurt the credibility of.

though I will say it can't hurt, regardless, to try and save at least a bit in certain areas (if only for the cost savings).

these 'scientists' need to be fired and barred from submitting to journals.
 
papajohn56 said:
they should be saying "CO2", the correct term. carbon itself is not at fault, but yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. even if the earth is warming, it has to be proven that humans did it, which is what these emails hurt the credibility of.

though I will say it can't hurt, regardless, to try and save at least a bit in certain areas (if only for the cost savings).

these 'scientists' need to be fired and barred from submitting to journals.
Click to expand...
Yes. Its unquestionable to me that we are doing harm to the planet in all kinds of ways, so I don't disagree that we should probably make some changes as a society. I just don't like pretending science is science when it isn't.
 
Global warming = bullshit

Courtesy of Penn & Teller:

HTML: 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5329857034306331360

Sorry don't know how to embed videos
 
Refrozen said:
I'm bumping this because I'm seriously disappointed in you guys and the rest of the world for not giving this story the attention it deserves.
Click to expand...

There are far too many with agendas to protect (too much money and power to lose). They would like nothing more than to see this whole scandal fade away as quickly as possible.
 
johnnyp said:
Global warming = bullshit

Courtesy of Penn & Teller:

HTML: 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5329857034306331360
Sorry don't know how to embed videos
Click to expand...
I've seen that. And while entertaining and unique like most of their stuff, it's quite weak. If I have time I'll watch it again later and critique.
 
LotsOfZeros said:
There are far too many with agendas to protect (too much money and power to lose). They would like nothing more than to see this whole scandal fade away as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...
This.

Also, a scam this big just seems too evil to believe for most of the American people. We are far too naive to see that the government is NOT the supreme power of present society; that everything the government does is heavily influenced by the few with the most money and power.
 
Global warming/climate change is a con designed to enact a global structure with powers of taxation and enforcement. Those fretting about rising oceans or dying polar bears don't really believe it or give a shit either way; the endgoal is a global treaty like the one that Obama might sign in Copenhagen.

Such a treaty would make the U.S. pay a 'climate debt' to Third World nations, since America is emitting more carbon dioxide than those nations. As you can see, the con is neither smart nor ironclad, yet it has managed to co-opt many people through either fear, bribery or intimidation. It's essentially a huge theft of our money by Third World nations through the UN - nations that are essentially allies or controlled by Russia/China.

The science has been rigged from the start. The people at the top don't get their hands dirty; they simply control the funding. Those that support the con get grants; the others don't. Scientists learned quickly, and those with no morals rose to the top.

For Eli, here's a Wikipedia temp graph showing the past 450,000 years. As far as I know, it's the earliest ice core data we have. Beyond that, they have sediment data, which I don't really trust because there are too many variables that can affect it. A clear pattern emerges.

Ice_Age_Temperature.png


It peaks and then drops off. Peaks and then drops off. We're clearly peaking, about to drop off. Beyond that, you can clearly see the earth has been MUCH warmer in past millennia.

People, the science isn't settled. There is no science. It's a bait and switch. It's a crisis and reaction, just like the bank bailouts, just like the GM bailouts. Engineer a crisis, provide the solution, and herd the sheep into the pen. It's a shoddily devised con that only works because there's a massive amount of people in on the con. The Nobel prize was a pre-emptive strike, devised to herd Obama into the pen. He's a key piece as he has to sign the treaty forking over taxpayer money/a percentage of GDP.

Obama goes to Copenhagen soon. Even though the 'science' has been blown wide open, it'll be interesting to see if they carry through with this joke. I don't see how they can stop now; they've invested too much for too many years. We'll see.
 
My question for you hellblazer is do you think someone like McCain would have taken action against something like this? Seriously?

Why is this ALL about Obama? You mentioned Obama 3 times in your post. How certain are you that McCain wouldn't support the same bullshit?

Keep in mind that I support everything you said. It's a real cause for concern, but what makes you so certain that we wouldn't be in the same shit had McCain been voted in?
 
blueRAP said:
do you think someone like McCain would have taken action against something like this?

Why is this ALL about Obama? You mentioned Obama 3 times in your post. How certain are you that McCain wouldn't support the same bullshit?

Keep in mind that I support everything you said. It's a real cause for concern, but what makes you so certain that we wouldn't be in the same shit had McCain been voted in?
Click to expand...

McCain is Obama-lite. Whereas McCain is fooled by the terminology and the propaganda, Obama is a true believer. So while there is a chance McCain would have signed something like this, there is a close-to-motherfucking guarantee Obama will.

I mention Obama only because he is currently the person in power. Neither man was qualified to be President, but Obama is far more dangerous because he is in the thick of it, working with these people and fully signed on to their plans. He knows exactly what he's doing. McCain, meanwhile, was a poor dope who was usually manipulated and deceived into supporting their initiatives. In my opinion, he doesn't know the real purpose behind their campaigns.

But none of that is relevant. If your point is that I liked McCain, you're dead wrong. He sucked. Obama sucked. They both sucked. Do we really need to have this "Yeah, but the Republican would have done the same shit..." discussion every time? McCain would have done a lot of the same shit as Obama, but Obama is worse in every single way because he is a committed ideologue. If that ruins your "Democrats=Republicans" paradigm, so be it. The Dems are much more dangerous.
 
I like you, hellblazer.

I'm sad that liberals refer to us as anti-intellectuals, when really the problem is that their "intellectualism" is so misrepresented and corrupt....
 
hellblazer said:
It peaks and then drops off. Peaks and then drops off. We're clearly peaking, about to drop off. Beyond that, you can clearly see the earth has been MUCH warmer in past millennia.
Click to expand...

one problem. you can't correlate the past to today's trends, since there are different factors now. I'm a major skeptic, but you can't base it off of that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom