Are you retarded? If you don't understand why the data was included, you need to stop spending your time parroting denialist propaganda, and educate yourself instead.
Sure. Lindzen, out of how many? Hint: if it actually happened, and it's documented, it's not "conspiracy theory". Strike one for your refutation.
What "actually happened"? The fact is that skeptics who produce actual research are publishing just fine. Now, they are unable to support their position, but they still get their stuff published. Your insane conspiracy theory is so idiotic it must take an extremely low IQ to subscribe to it.
No, they weren't. In the particular email to which you refer, Jones was referring to a paper by McIntyre and McKitrick, who Jones and Mann simply didn't like, because they were critical of the methods used by Mann and CRU. The criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, far from not "standing up to even a superficial look", were later specifically stated to be valid in the Wegman report commissioned by the US Senate. Strike two for your refutation.
Bullshit. They were referring to poor research that did not stand up to even a superficial look.
Nice straw-man argument! How many of them at the time were actively involved with this research?
Are you fucking retarded? The research has been independently verified by scientists across the world.
Your bias is showing. As I have shown above, it was not crappy research, and Energy and Environment is far from a "kook rag"! Do you know anything about it at all?
It's a known denialist rag, and the kooks are publishing there.
YOU are the one who made the assumptions. You assumed that the paper by McKitrick and McIntyre was garbage (have you read it?). It was not. Their criticisms of the work done by Mann, Jones, et al. were specifically upheld by the statisticians who later reviewed the work.
Bullshit. McDenialists have been repeatedly caught with their pants down, lying through their teeth.
Just the other day I found some counter-evidence right here.
Why are you linking to a liar's blog, you fucking moron?
Dude, the only way you would get anywhere with that kind of score is in bowling. Maybe you should take it up.
Guess what, denialist douchebag, you can keep spewing your creationist lies. And I'll be right there to expose you.
Do you not find it interesting that when the science actually says what the claims make it out to be, that the easiest way to silence paid pundits or gadflies is to publish the data and make the facts available
Actually, no. The data and facts are readily available. But the denialists are only interested in cherry-picking what suits them. Just like creationists. The data is there. And yet both creationists and denialists keep denying it.
Good point. However, if everyone and anyone had access to the data when the research was published, then when the Nay Sayers demanded that 2+2=5, it would be ten times or more difficult to convince others
Again, this is wrong. The data is available, and the denialists keep misrepresenting it. To the denialist propaganda machinery it's more important to get a lie out there, because once it's out there, denialist sheep will parrot it for eternity.
There's been a lot of talk about consensus, but this consensus is mostly limited to those in politics and those whose careers and livelihoods are invested in only one conclusion.
This is a blatant lie. There is a clear scientific consensus behind AGW, meaning that all the research collectively shows AGW. Denialists like you are the ones spewing your political propaganda.
What's reasonable is thinking for yourself enough to see where people's motives lie.
Your motives are clear. Your political ideology is threatened by science, therefore you feel compelled to fight science.
Actually, you are wrong. They also looked at some data, and actually independently verified the findings of Jones and the rest.
I mean, for fucks sake, even the fucking dishonest denialist moron Anthony Watts was unable to show anything wrong even with his cherry-picked weather station data!
It is a MONEY SCAM. Al Gore is a partner in one of the firms that setup the entire idea of a Global Tax on carbon.
If you hadn't been such an ignorant fucktard, you would have known that scientists knew about global warming even in the late 1800s. Were they in it for the money too?
And are thousands of climate scientists around the world involved in a massive conspiracy the likes of which the world has never seen before?
Christ. You denialists are always spewing the same old lies. In fact, the hockey stick was upheld by independent research. The rest of your comment is equally ignorant and dishonest.
Typical denialist nonsense. First make a completely bogus claim, then, when faced with evidence to the contrary, ignore that you were just caugt lying, and move the goalpost. Propaganda? That's what you are spewing.
LOL. Why do denialists never "follow the money" when it comes to other denialists? Ignoring all the front groups funded by the oil industry, are we?
Who gives a shit about Al Gore? He is not a scientist, and climate research didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere when he came along.
The problem with denialists is that they listen to the wrong people. And instead of listening to the actuals scientists, you are ranting about Al Gore! Hilarious. And more than a little pathetic.
The whole "controversy" is manufactured by right-wing PR agencies. The same core of people are involved in creationist propaganda, and also used to help the tobacco industry spread lies about the danger of smoking.
Why would they take testimony from "skeptics", when all the "skeptics" have done is to quote-mine the e-mails?
Never mind the fact that the research has been independently verified by researchers all over the world. But who cares about actual science when there's a controversy to manufacture, right?
There is no high priesthood of science. What you have is a number of scientists who are actual experts, and then you have a bunch of political demagogues trying to convince everyone else that the scientists are wrong because the research is contrary to the demagogues' political ideology.
The denialists are the one mixing science with politics. You are an example of that. The research is clear, and yet you oppose the scientific facts because you don't like it that the policy based on that is contrary to your political ideology. Fail.
Funny you should mention you were a fence sitter, because I was one too. I didn't even bother to look at the evidence. Then the CRU e-mails leaked, and all the claims about a huge controversy sparked my interest. So I started looking that the mails in context, and started reading up on climate research.
Guess what, you are full of shit. I used to accept shit from assholes like you. Then I educated myself.
The explanation is that they were flooded by FOIA requests, and responding to them would basically have taken away all research resources. So they were pissed off at the denialists who were basically DoSing them.
that is the fraud he perpetuated by hiding the decline by REMOVING it from the famous hockey stick graph. It's blatant fraud
Uh, no, it isn't. In fact, entire research papers are dedicated to the problem. How can something be "fraud" when it's being openly and widely discussed and analyzed?
Oh, he also bent it upwards to merge it back into a continuous line with the temperature data...
Really? When and where was that?
oh wait there's more, he eliminated the Medieval Warm Period which was actually warmer than anytime in the last hundred years!
He did no such thing. The MWP was a local phenomenon. But hey, don't let your own ignorance and dishonesty get in the way of ranting about things you are obviously clueless about.
For more details see http://www.climateaudit.org/ where the hockey stick is slaughtered as are the three recent political whitewash inquiries.
The hockey stick has been confirmed as being valid. Oops.
So... When the mails broke, I was on the fence. I was basically clueless about climate change, and I accepted a lot of stuff from the denialist side that later turned out to be lies.
The word from "skeptics" was that the mails were damning, and basically exposed climate scientists. That intrigued me. Having dealt with creationists in the past, I remember similar claims from them, and every single time it turned out to be nonsense.
So I started reading. And I didn't just look at the carefully chosen sentences published by denialists. I looked at the context.
Turns out that every single thing you claim was "well documented" in the e-mails wasn't really as well documented. In fact, what you just did is to list a bunch of lies based on misinformation and quote-mining.
Needless to say, having educated myself about not only the e-mails, but also acquiring more knowledge of the whole global warming thing, I am now firmly on the side of the scientists. And I realize that I was a moron to believe the denialists before the Manufactroversy called "Climategate" broke.
You tell other people to do their homework when you obviously didn't do yours. Typical denialist tactic. Since I started paying attention to the debate and educated myself, I have realized that denialists are exactly like creationists, and there are two rules when debating with creationists:
Creationists lie
See #1
Those two rules also apply to denialists. So screw you and your dishonest, hypocritical, ignorant crap. People who actually pay attention will know that you are full of shit. And this comes from someone who used to be sympathetic to your side of the debate.
They did respond to the basic point. The Dutch have spent decades and huge amounts of money to prepare themselves. Had they been run by denialists, they would have been in deep shit by now. They would have not prepared.
Just like denialists like you are trying to convince people to not prepare. So when the shit does hit the fan it's going to be too late, or many times as expensive to fix it.
Again: Sea level change was not a disaster because they spent a long time and a lot of money preparing. You did not address this point at all. God fucking dammit, assholes like you disgust me.
Windows is good at just working with hardware and loads of software. It might suck at other things compared to other OSes, but it certainly has its strengths, and the parts that aren't as good are apparently good enough for most people.
The Nintendo Wii might have sucky graphics compared to the competition, but they are apparently good enough for most people. And the Wii remote outweighed the "only-good-enough" graphics.
VHS might have had worse quality than BetaMax, but it was apparently good enough, and the longer tapes more than outweighed the lower quality.
WebM is good enough. It doesn't need to be better than H.264 or perfect. And it has one huge advantage, which is that it's royalty-free.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you retarded? If you don't understand why the data was included, you need to stop spending your time parroting denialist propaganda, and educate yourself instead.
Actually, it is. If we don't do something before it's too late, it's going to get really, really nasty. We are even seeing bad effects today.
Says the denialist kook who keeps mindlessly parroting AGW denialist propaganda...
What "actually happened"? The fact is that skeptics who produce actual research are publishing just fine. Now, they are unable to support their position, but they still get their stuff published. Your insane conspiracy theory is so idiotic it must take an extremely low IQ to subscribe to it.
Bullshit. They were referring to poor research that did not stand up to even a superficial look.
Are you fucking retarded? The research has been independently verified by scientists across the world.
It's a known denialist rag, and the kooks are publishing there.
Bullshit. McDenialists have been repeatedly caught with their pants down, lying through their teeth.
Why are you linking to a liar's blog, you fucking moron?
Guess what, denialist douchebag, you can keep spewing your creationist lies. And I'll be right there to expose you.
Actually, no. The data and facts are readily available. But the denialists are only interested in cherry-picking what suits them. Just like creationists. The data is there. And yet both creationists and denialists keep denying it.
Again, this is wrong. The data is available, and the denialists keep misrepresenting it. To the denialist propaganda machinery it's more important to get a lie out there, because once it's out there, denialist sheep will parrot it for eternity.
This is a blatant lie. There is a clear scientific consensus behind AGW, meaning that all the research collectively shows AGW. Denialists like you are the ones spewing your political propaganda.
Your motives are clear. Your political ideology is threatened by science, therefore you feel compelled to fight science.
Yes, it is a budget thing, because the data is often licensed from someone else, so you don't have the right to publish it in the first place.
I mean, for fucks sake, even the fucking dishonest denialist moron Anthony Watts was unable to show anything wrong even with his cherry-picked weather station data!
If you hadn't been such an ignorant fucktard, you would have known that scientists knew about global warming even in the late 1800s. Were they in it for the money too?
And are thousands of climate scientists around the world involved in a massive conspiracy the likes of which the world has never seen before?
Fuck you and your insane conspiracy crap.
Christ. You denialists are always spewing the same old lies. In fact, the hockey stick was upheld by independent research. The rest of your comment is equally ignorant and dishonest.
Typical denialist nonsense. First make a completely bogus claim, then, when faced with evidence to the contrary, ignore that you were just caugt lying, and move the goalpost. Propaganda? That's what you are spewing.
Who gives a shit about Al Gore? He is not a scientist, and climate research didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere when he came along.
The problem with denialists is that they listen to the wrong people. And instead of listening to the actuals scientists, you are ranting about Al Gore! Hilarious. And more than a little pathetic.
Why would they take testimony from "skeptics", when all the "skeptics" have done is to quote-mine the e-mails?
Never mind the fact that the research has been independently verified by researchers all over the world. But who cares about actual science when there's a controversy to manufacture, right?
There is no high priesthood of science. What you have is a number of scientists who are actual experts, and then you have a bunch of political demagogues trying to convince everyone else that the scientists are wrong because the research is contrary to the demagogues' political ideology.
The denialists are the one mixing science with politics. You are an example of that. The research is clear, and yet you oppose the scientific facts because you don't like it that the policy based on that is contrary to your political ideology. Fail.
They couldn't release the data because a lot of it was licensed from someone else. They didn't have the right to release it.
Funny you should mention you were a fence sitter, because I was one too. I didn't even bother to look at the evidence. Then the CRU e-mails leaked, and all the claims about a huge controversy sparked my interest. So I started looking that the mails in context, and started reading up on climate research.
Guess what, you are full of shit. I used to accept shit from assholes like you. Then I educated myself.
The explanation is that they were flooded by FOIA requests, and responding to them would basically have taken away all research resources. So they were pissed off at the denialists who were basically DoSing them.
Uh, no, it isn't. In fact, entire research papers are dedicated to the problem. How can something be "fraud" when it's being openly and widely discussed and analyzed?
Really? When and where was that?
He did no such thing. The MWP was a local phenomenon. But hey, don't let your own ignorance and dishonesty get in the way of ranting about things you are obviously clueless about.
The hockey stick has been confirmed as being valid. Oops.
The word from "skeptics" was that the mails were damning, and basically exposed climate scientists. That intrigued me. Having dealt with creationists in the past, I remember similar claims from them, and every single time it turned out to be nonsense.
So I started reading. And I didn't just look at the carefully chosen sentences published by denialists. I looked at the context.
Turns out that every single thing you claim was "well documented" in the e-mails wasn't really as well documented. In fact, what you just did is to list a bunch of lies based on misinformation and quote-mining.
Needless to say, having educated myself about not only the e-mails, but also acquiring more knowledge of the whole global warming thing, I am now firmly on the side of the scientists. And I realize that I was a moron to believe the denialists before the Manufactroversy called "Climategate" broke.
You tell other people to do their homework when you obviously didn't do yours. Typical denialist tactic. Since I started paying attention to the debate and educated myself, I have realized that denialists are exactly like creationists, and there are two rules when debating with creationists:
Those two rules also apply to denialists. So screw you and your dishonest, hypocritical, ignorant crap. People who actually pay attention will know that you are full of shit. And this comes from someone who used to be sympathetic to your side of the debate.
I can spell "denialist trash" at least. My spelling seems more accurate.
Just like denialists like you are trying to convince people to not prepare. So when the shit does hit the fan it's going to be too late, or many times as expensive to fix it.
Again: Sea level change was not a disaster because they spent a long time and a lot of money preparing. You did not address this point at all. God fucking dammit, assholes like you disgust me.
Windows is good at just working with hardware and loads of software. It might suck at other things compared to other OSes, but it certainly has its strengths, and the parts that aren't as good are apparently good enough for most people.
The Nintendo Wii might have sucky graphics compared to the competition, but they are apparently good enough for most people. And the Wii remote outweighed the "only-good-enough" graphics.
VHS might have had worse quality than BetaMax, but it was apparently good enough, and the longer tapes more than outweighed the lower quality.
WebM is good enough. It doesn't need to be better than H.264 or perfect. And it has one huge advantage, which is that it's royalty-free.
It's called both climate change and global warming, you idiot.
Wow, AGW denialists really are exactly the same as creationists.