Posted on 11/25/2009 6:02:09 PM PST by tobyhill
Looks a lot like the “orphan” defense used by a kid charged with murdering his parents.
R
You apparantly don't know the left very well.
When it becomes too much to keep this BS campaign going, they'll turn their backs on as one. It'll be like throwing a light switch. The MSM, academia, othe opinion leaders for the left will drop the subject into the memory hole, and that'll be it. They'll quickly come up with some other boogie-man, and start screaming about that at the top of their lungs. This moment has not yet arrived, however.
By the way, I'll make a far-reaching prediction right now: the solution to the new boogie man will be, by an amazing coincidence, the same as it was for AGW: we must immediately do away with capitalism and freedom, or we're all going to die.
Carp like watching cockroaches fleeing en masse.
True enough. And when we start to run those FORTRAN routines we will see the fraud in spades.
> Smeared with their own words.
oooooooooh. Since their words are all bullsh!t thats nasty stuff to get smeared with.
Note how Reuters editorializes - should read "...even as (climate researchers claim that the) case for...
The findings are a synthesis of 200 peer-reviewed papers that continued to pour in from all over the world after the UN IPCC issued its 2007 analysis. Somerville described the report as an "authoritative assessment" of the newest climate change data.
Needless to say the emails expose not only fraud by many of the leading "peers" but also an attempt to freeze out any scientist that doesn't agree with the leading peers so that they will never be themselves peers of dissent.
The results reveal that global warming emissions in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990. Further, sea level rise is 80 percent above past IPCC predictions.
Global warming emissions (note how Reuters presumes that CO2 is "warming emissions") are obviously higher by all their claims but of course no mention of the cooling reality. As to sea level rise being "80% above past IPCC predictions" - What predictions? When were the predictions made? Not 73%? No info so apparently only the shadow knows.
If 2 degree Celsius warming is to be avoided—the point at which catastrophic damage is predicted to occur—fossil fuel emissions must peak between 2015 and 2020, "and then decline rapidly," the authors warn.
Once again easy numbers for idiots to digest. Not 1.73 Celsius? How about 2.04 Celsius? Just fodder for twits but it again exposes them as condescending to people of basic intelligence.
This article mentions a major scandal without noting any direct quote from the emails, gives a huge soapbox for Mann and Co. to claim a nefarious conspiracy, and attempts to frame critics as just being "cranky" and thus unworthy of investigation into said critics criticism. There may be a lot of people invested in GW but it is becoming easier and easier to show what an emotional/profitable farce that it is.
This is a "smear campaign to distract the public," said Mann. "Those opposed to climate action, simply don't have the science on their side," he added.Of course there is "absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change." Bernard Madoff was deeply committed, too. That's always true of the conspirators in any successful fraud.. . . The vital point being left out, he said, is that "regardless of how cherry-picked," there is "absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change."
Hire an “Air Quality Expert” for 100,000 a year.
Then ask him... “Do you think air quality is a problem?”
Do you think he is going to say “Not really, air quality has been improving over the last decade.”?
Or is he going to say “The longterm effects of many of these pollutants has never been gaged and we must be ever vigilant....”
“The comments in the FORTRAN code prove there was fraud.”
Do you have an example of that?
(Just curious)
“Global warming is manmade, all right. It’s made by men in lab coats who angle for government grants by fudging the data. “
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.