'New release' of climate emails

BBC News ^ | 11/22/11 | Richard Black

[goodnesswins]

A computer hacking in Russia has lead to a release of more undermining info about "Climate."

Here's one tidbit: "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels."

[Major Matt Mason]

Looking forward to the next 200,000 to be released. I'm sure the climate fraudsters aren't, however.

[Moonman62]

A computer hacking in Russia has lead to a release of more undermining info about "Climate."

Russia's economy depends on the selling of fossil fuels, so they are motivated to expose Global Warming fraud.

[Raycpa]

I consider their models about as important as what is at the bottom of the hole under an outhouse.

Unfortunately for us the outhouse is two stories and we are on the first floor.

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

FINALLY Drudge has a link up. He’s been slow on the draw, today. It’s the Guardian one.

[gibsosa]

bump

[JewishRighter]

Good catch, B1! Thank you. That gives me the reassurance I need. If it wasn’t real, they wouldn’t need to spin.

When asked if they were genuine, he said: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.”

Spin Cycle set on FULL

[CedarDave]

FINALLY Drudge has a link up. He’s been slow on the draw, today. It’s the Guardian one.

Seem real but dated. Appears as though they are from the same time frame as the ones in 2009.

[PENANCE]

Actually the problem is they have a theory. This requires a paper to be written and then tested by peers. ie Cold Fusion."

Not to pick on what you say, but one of the ways this hoax has been perpetrated is through THE MYTH OF PEER REVIEW. That being that data, analysis, or results presented in a "scientific" paper submitted for publication is somehow "tested" or "proven" by other scientists before it is published.

"Peer Review" has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with science.

It is a process used by PUBLISHERS of "scientific" journals to convince their readers that what they print isn't so wildly out of the realm of possibility as to be unworthy of reading.

[FreedomPoster]

>>As anyone from MN can tell you, even though ice melts at 32deg, it also evaporates at lower temps. Without continued snowfall, eventually it vanishes due to evaporation.

Technically, that is sublimation - a phase change directly from the solid to the gaseous state, with no intermediate liquid state. Evaporation is a phase change of a material from liquid to gaseous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28phase_transition%29#Water

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

Ugh! Puke!

Kenneth Trenberth on Nobel and religion at Christmas

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/kenneth-trenberth-on-nobel-and-religion-at-christmas/

[EQAndyBuzz]

Who is “them”?

[dools0007world]

It’s called arrogance. Like Sandusky, they believed they were protected.

[goodnesswins]

Quite FULL OF HIMSELF!!

[JewishRighter]

Methinks you’re right. I have a bad habit of getting optimistic whenever it appears that liberal fascists caught in the headlights and they’re about to be utterly destroyed. Been that way since the Lewinsky thing happened. But they have such a cabal of liars protecting them and attacking honest people that they always seem to slip the scaffold.

I’m trying not to get too high about this, but wouldn’t it be so sweet to see some of these high priests of Warmism frog marched out of their ivory towers? I get a tingle up my leg...

[Zathras]

Good catch. Its been 30 years since I tutored Chemistry and now just design microprocessors and it shows. :-)

[Trillian]

Bookmark

[grey_whiskers]

From Tom Weller's classic 1986 Hugo Award winner, Science Made Stupid:

What is Science?

Put most simply, science is a way of dealing with the world around us. It is a way of baffling the uninitiated with incomprehensible jargon. It is a way of obtaining fat government grants. It is a way of achieving mastery over the physical world by threatening it with destruction.
Science represents mankind's deepest aspirations - aspirations to power, to wealth, to the satisfaction of sheer animal lusts.
The cornerstone of modern science is the scientific method. Scientists first formulate hypotheses, or predictions, about nature. Then they perform experiments to test their hypotheses.
There are two forms of scientific method, the inductive and the deductive.

Science for Everyone

Sound simple? It is.
Once, when the secrets of science were the jealously guarded property of a small priesthood, the common man had no hope of mastering their arcane complexities. Years of study in musty classrooms were prerequisite to obtaining even a dim, incoherent knowledge of science.
Today, all that has changed: a dim, incoherent knowledge of science is available to anyone. Popular science books, magazines and computer programs - with their simple, fatuous and misleading prose, their garish illustrations, their flimsy modern production values - have brought science within the reach of anyone who can afford their inflated prices or who can mooch off someone else.
Indeed, today a myriad of sources are available to explain science facts that science itself has never dreamed of.
This book site is one of them.






Cheers!

[dools0007world]

I’m a very ashamed Penn State grad—’65. Different school then.

I’ve been posting with a fellow from Maryland whose son and daughter attend PSU. They’re conservatives and, according to the father, don’t take any Marxist crap from the professors. I asked him to keep me informed about what is happening at Penn State with regard to the Sandusky/Penn State scandal and the lovely Professor Mann and his cohort.

I’ll pass along what I hear to you.

Also, I can’t tell you how pleased I am to know at least one Jewish person who understands aligning himself with Marxist demrats is a pact with the Devil. My hat is off to you JewishRighter.

[Enchante]

I've only begun learning about a lot of the shady b.s. of Climategate etc., but in poking through some of the blogs I came upon this outrageous tale of a "leading scientist" (sic) who has played a significant role across a number of IPCC reports and forums:

Bizarro Tale of an IPCC "leading scientist"


Now I have no idea what this woman does or does not know about myriad key scientific issues in "climate science" but the idea that since 1994 she has been a key "inside player" in IPCC report-generation suggests a thoroughly corrupt system choosing people for politically correct reasons rather than for any vaunted scientific "expertise" --- because by no stretch of anyone's imagination could she be considered any world-class expert in anything to date, except perhaps in milking politically correct structures of the UN.

As for her apparent (at last) PhD in epidemiology, her thesis topic sounds thoroughly pedestrian and limited (as most PhD topics are), very distant from "climate science" and in no way suggesting an expertise that could justify her IPCC roles even had she done the PhD 20 years ago and not just recently.

I'm not suggesting her as an example having anything to do specifically (I have no idea) with Mann or Jones, et al, but rather as an example of the blatant institutional corruption and ineptitude of the IPCC process more generally.

[freedommom]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-20128315/climate-experts-expect-more-weather-disasters/

they say expect more diasters from global warming