Originally posted by kobie173

I read it the first time, asshole. They say they chucked it. I don't believe them, and I think all they are trying to do is circumvent the FOIA. Now fuck off.

"Look worse than I already do"? Please. I will explain it to you again -- impropriety from one of the scientific organizations does NOT NOT NOT completely debunk the theory of global man-influenced climate change. You insist it does, and you're wrong.

i can't imagine what kind of world you live in.

but it's so far from reality .....i am glad there aren't more of your type

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by kobie173

I read it the first time, asshole. They say they chucked it. I don't believe them, and I think all they are trying to do is circumvent the FOIA. Now fuck off.

"Look worse than I already do"? Please. I will explain it to you again -- impropriety from one of the scientific organizations does NOT NOT NOT completely debunk the theory of global man-influenced climate change. You insist it does, and you're wrong.

 

i can't imagine what kind of world you live in.

but it's so far from reality .....i am glad there aren't more of your type

Sure thing, hoss.

Question -- when it was proven that the Kenyan birth certificate was faked, did it for you completely debunk the Obama-is-from-Kenya theory?

HOLY SHIT. HOW DID I MISS THIS?

Yep, they dumped the data alright. In the 1980s. From the article you posted, Faxxy:

"Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years."
 

So yes, dumping the data 20+ years ago obviously invalidates everything. Lock up Al Gore and throw away the key.

It's one thing to get on MY case for not reading your links. It's quite another to not read them yourself.

So to summarize:

* We have the dumping of raw data over 20 years ago being brought up now in an attempt to discredit the entire theory.

* We have a bunch of stolen e-mails that essentially indicate what we already knew -- that scientists tend not to hold their skeptics in high regard. No shit.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Originally posted by kobie173

HOLY SHIT. HOW DID I MISS THIS?

Yep, they dumped the data alright. In the 1980s. From the article you posted, Faxxy:

"Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years."
 

So yes, dumping the data 20+ years ago obviously invalidates everything. Lock up Al Gore and throw away the key.

It's one thing to get on MY case for not reading your links. It's quite another to not read them yourself.

So to summarize:

* We have the dumping of raw data over 20 years ago being brought up now in an attempt to discredit the entire theory.

* We have a bunch of stolen e-mails that essentially indicate what we already knew -- that scientists tend not to hold their skeptics in high regard. No shit.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

you are amazing Kobie....simply amazing...

I am almost unable to figure out how to communicate with you since you only hear or see what your agenda has programmed you to...

there is this horrible thing that came out...called Climategate...

some scientists did something bad M'kay?

emails were stolen that has them discussing things like this:

"to hide the decline"

"peer review definition will be changed" (to keep dissenting voices from being heard)

and this one is the most important since you are really up in arms...

"delete any emails regarding...."  (data we've made or used)  <<<<<<this one here really makes your above post ....profoundly ignorant.

Originally posted by kobie173

HOLY SHIT. HOW DID I MISS THIS?

Yep, they dumped the data alright. In the 1980s. From the article you posted, Faxxy:

"Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years."
 

So yes, dumping the data 20+ years ago obviously invalidates everything. Lock up Al Gore and throw away the key.

It's one thing to get on MY case for not reading your links. It's quite another to not read them yourself.

So to summarize:

* We have the dumping of raw data over 20 years ago being brought up now in an attempt to discredit the entire theory.

* We have a bunch of stolen e-mails that essentially indicate what we already knew -- that scientists tend not to hold their skeptics in high regard. No shit.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

The dumped data is the data they used to support their conclusions.

So, it does kinda matter.

It's like, hey guys, I discovered fusion, and I can prove it!

Ok, where's the data?

Well, that's been dumped, but you can take my word for it! Cause before i dumped the data it checked out. Yes sir, very scientific and all.

Nobody is moving along because there is something to see here.

Scientists dont' mind showing other scientists exactly how they come to their conclusions so there findings can be replicated. That's how you validate discoveries.

Look I discovered fusion. here's my notes. now you try it, and see if it works.

that's pretty much how they do it, but you think it's fine to just take their word for it, and not be able to replicate the findings?

Why would you think that unless you have an agenda, and don't really care about the science at all?

Science fell victim to politics in this debate a long, long time ago.

Originally posted by kobie173

Actually, I said that I wouldn't count on bloggers for FACTS. Analysis is different, if you take it with a grain of salt.

Now, if you honestly believe that these scientists would (or even could) delete that kind of data, you're stupider than I thought. Now, why they are apparently trying to circumvent a FOIA request is not for me or you to determine. But again, nothing here invalidates the theory. Same old song and dance.

Mate, it's Anglia University we are talking about. Calling them "scientists" is about the scientific communities favourite joke.

There are scientists that make breakthroughs that advance mankind and there are scientists that are government funded to keep people off dole queues and improve national education statistics.

I live in Cambridge.

In the centre of the town, we have Isaac's Newtons old college.  Surrounded by 34 others dating back 800 years that collectively together are all known as Cambridge University. Francis Bacon created scientific method here. They discovered the electron, hydrogen and electromagnetism... They split the atom. Discovered DNA and later decoded it with computers, a device which they also invented. They hold 50% of all Nobel prizes for science ever. Grow metal crystals for jet aeroplane blades, just for practise, right down the road from Charles Darwins old house, almost opposite Steven Hawking's.

On the outskirts of town, nestled between two permanent gypsy camps, the roughest council estate and a motorway, is Anglia University. It's 10 years old.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to get into Anglia, and in fact if you are a genius, you chose another universtiy to attend completely.  In fact, Anglia University is your last choice, it's everyone's last choice. The lowest achieving higher educational facility in the land. 

Joke courses at a joke university. Hairdressing. Enviromentalism. Photography. Waste management. Tourism.

If I was to choose one place in the world most likely to contain highly ignorable scientififc evidence, that would be the place.

So who are you going to trust?  Me, I'm down with the smart money.

 

..Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill.. Just posted at yahoo..

Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails Video

Nice...

Are we still debating global warming!? I got dibs on predicting the next global cooling. I CALLED IT FIRST!

Originally posted by Vemoi

Are we still debating global warming!? I got dibs on predicting the next global cooling. I CALLED IT FIRST!

I need a Billion dollars to study Global Cooling. It's real, and millions will die if we don't stop it!

The best way to stop global cooling is to produce Co2, and the best way to produce Co2 is to increase the human population.

My study will concentrate on how to get people to have more unprotected sex, so they will produce more babies, so they can produce more Co2.

Japan's population is decreasing, and so is much of Europe. This is an EMERGENCY people! If we don't start now, the entire planet could be a frozen ice ball in just a few years!

I hope you are having sex as you read this, if not, you are helping to create Global Cooling! Shame on you!

Your girlfriend isn't that hot? Close your eyes, think about Jessica Alba, and do it for the planet! For God sakes, do you want to kill us all and turn the Earth into a frozen wasteland? Do you?

Don't let the Polar Bears rule the Earth!

Originally posted by Vemoi

Are we still debating global warming!? I got dibs on predicting the next global cooling. I CALLED IT FIRST!

Not meaning to steal your thunder but I posted a link on the bottom of page 15 of this thread about a cooling trend that is starting.Hehe

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by kobie173

Actually, I said that I wouldn't count on bloggers for FACTS. Analysis is different, if you take it with a grain of salt.

Now, if you honestly believe that these scientists would (or even could) delete that kind of data, you're stupider than I thought. Now, why they are apparently trying to circumvent a FOIA request is not for me or you to determine. But again, nothing here invalidates the theory. Same old song and dance.

 

Mate, it's Anglia University we are talking about. Calling them "scientists" is about the scientific communities favourite joke.

 

There are scientists that make breakthroughs that advance mankind and there are scientists that are government funded to keep people off dole queues and improve national education statistics.

 

I live in Cambridge.

In the centre of the town, we have Isaac's Newtons old college.  Surrounded by 34 others dating back 800 years that collectively together are all known as Cambridge University. Francis Bacon created scientific method here. They discovered the electron, hydrogen and electromagnetism... They split the atom. Discovered DNA and later decoded it with computers, a device which they also invented. They hold 50% of all Nobel prizes for science ever. Grow metal crystals for jet aeroplane blades, just for practise, right down the road from Charles Darwins old house, almost opposite Steven Hawking's.

 

On the outskirts of town, nestled between two permanent gypsy camps, the roughest council estate and a motorway, is Anglia University. It's 10 years old.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to get into Anglia, and in fact if you are a genius, you chose another universtiy to attend completely.  In fact, Anglia University is your last choice, it's everyone's last choice. The lowest achieving higher educational facility in the land. 

Joke courses at a joke university. Hairdressing. Enviromentalism. Photography. Waste management. Tourism.

If I was to choose one place in the world most likely to contain highly ignorable scientififc evidence, that would be the place.

 

So who are you going to trust?  Me, I'm down with the smart money.

10 years old? It seems the University was founded in 1963 and ranked 57th in Europe and in the top 200 Universities in the world.Granted not as venerable as Cambridge but not the complete pile of dung that you have indicated.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_East_Anglia

Originally posted by Scubie67

Originally posted by Vemoi

Are we still debating global warming!? I got dibs on predicting the next global cooling. I CALLED IT FIRST!

 

Not meaning to steal your thunder but I posted a link on the bottom of page 15 of this thread about a cooling trend that is starting.Hehe

Ok I'll let you share in the fame.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

bout fucking time.

"The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.

Mr. Horner, a noted global warming skeptic and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, wants a look at the data and the discussions that went into those changes. He said he's given the agency until the end of the year to comply or else he'll sue to compel the information's release.

His fight mirrors one in Europe that has sprung up over the the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in the UK after thousands of e-mails from the center were obtained and appear to show researchers shaving their data to make it conform to their expectation, and show efforts to try to drive global warming skeptics out of the conversation.

The center's chief has stepped down pending an investigation into the e-mails.

The center has also had to acknowledge in response to a freedom of information request under British law that it tossed out much of the raw data that it used to draw up the temperature models that have underpinned much of the science behind global warming.

Mr. Horner suspects the same sort of data-shaving has happened at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), another leading global warming research center. "
 

how's that consensus working out for you?

Nice find Faxxer, one more pillar in the global warming religion is being weakened and will hopefully be toppled.

Originally posted by Aetius73

10 years old? It seems the University was founded in 1963 and ranked 57th in Europe and in the top 200 Universities in the world.Granted not as venerable as Cambridge but not the complete pile of dung that you have indicated.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_East_Anglia

My mistake.

 It seems I have had Anglia University confused with the University of East Anglia.  

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Aetius73

10 years old? It seems the University was founded in 1963 and ranked 57th in Europe and in the top 200 Universities in the world.Granted not as venerable as Cambridge but not the complete pile of dung that you have indicated.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_East_Anglia

My mistake.

 It seems I have had Anglia University confused with the University of East Anglia.  

 

 

 

I can see where that would be easy to mix up. Practically the same name.

mods delete.

Originally posted by FilipinoFury

mods delete.

Don't like the way the discussion is going so you want the thread deleted? Too bad there are no mods here.

This reminds me Climategate...

 Its warm and its my fault...