Comments on: Climategate

By: mrjohnqpublic

mrjohnqpublic — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:38:08 +0000

Let's see:

a) subverting the peer review process
b) stacking the UN IPCC
c) obstruction of the Freedom on information act
d) breach of university and state ethics codes

... and we haven't even talked about the data yet.

Climate Science - the new Ponzi scheme!

p.s. - Is this what the UN and Al Gore supports?

By: mrjohnqpublic

mrjohnqpublic — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:38:08 +0000

By: mesaeconoguy

mesaeconoguy — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 05:39:14 +0000

Ka-ching!

By: brotio

brotio — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:17:26 +0000

Biot = a very picturesque and very popular medieval village that's actually about 2500 years old ?…

… That was only recently revealed by receding glaciers, thus proving AGW?

By: brotio

brotio — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:14:11 +0000

I'm pretty sure that Mark intended that reply for Yabbut.

By: Justin Palmer

Justin Palmer — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:45:49 +0000

Me or Dan? I'm the one trying to nail down Dan's position, which from what I gather is very simple. It appears damaging but really isn't. They might have done something bad with the data, but I'm sure they had a good reason. And, They didn't really mean what they said by changing peer review, just trust them to sort this stuff out.

By: Justin Palmer

Justin Palmer — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:43:59 +0000

Oh I know but you can only change one mind at a time.

By: kevin

kevin — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:38:26 +0000

marcus,danielkuhne,MWG,are you guys gw guys reading your post leave me to believe it is more of a hoax than ever insults and name calling,very professional

By: mesaeconoguy

mesaeconoguy — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:33:40 +0000

Game

Set

Match.

By: kevin

kevin — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:31:14 +0000

fraud ,fraud,fraud, gw is a fraud

By: mesaeconoguy

mesaeconoguy — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:34:06 +0000

What do you think of that graph? The implications BLOW ME AWAY!

Of course it does.

Because you don’t know how to interpret data (see above).

And you don't know how to interpret anything.

And I seriously, very seriously fear for anyone in your care.

You are a danger to the community, and probably yourself.

By: mesaeconoguy

mesaeconoguy — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:55:22 +0000

George inadvertently raises a very important issue here: now that we know the peer review process was corrupted, not only is the original work in question here, ALL of the material published subsequently citing this research is tainted, and all of these reviewers are now in question, as is any of the research they reviewed.

The entire field is now in question.

That is the wonder (and unintended consequence) of centralized research.

By: mesaeconoguy

mesaeconoguy — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:19:14 +0000

Mon biot

Mon = my (Fr.)

Biot = the French physicist Jean-Baptiste Biot ?

Biot = a very picturesque and very popular medieval village that's actually about 2500 years old ?

By: brotio

brotio — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:13:04 +0000

Mesa,

You may already know this, but Monbiot is the inspiration for the term, moonbat.

By: mesaeconoguy

mesaeconoguy — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:12:04 +0000

I always thought his name was George Moonbat…

By: mark

mark — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:32:43 +0000

No, you're the lost sheep being lead to the slaughter. And the fool. And the dope who expects us all to believe you're not a totalitarian.

By: mark

mark — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:30:54 +0000

"It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow," glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists.

Hear that, Dorko Kuehn and Muirloser? Sorry, but Algore's not on the fast track for carbon-billionaire status yet, no matter what kind of useful idiocy you've contributed on this blog.

Yeah!!!!

By: mesaeconoguy

mesaeconoguy — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:52:29 +0000

Actually George, there is another possibility – that natural CO2 was sufficiently high around & before the industrial revolution, and that this concentration really took off after it, and the anthropogenic component effectively supplanted the “natural variability.” But that still does not account for glacial decline caused by human-caused warming at the end of the 19th century.

You said yourself "That anthropogenic warming only starts in 1950."

After 1950, the magic warming fairy suddenly “switched on” the AGW component, causing and accelerating (in a runaway unstable process, very rare in the known universe) warming well beyond any natural variance.

Riiiiiiiiight.

By: mark

mark — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:17:29 +0000

Do you guys realize that there are thousands upon thousands of Danku's all throughout the government bureacracy, wonking and hairsplitting us down the road to totalitarianism?

By: mark

mark — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:10:45 +0000

“your completely missing my point”

That's because you're giving yourself wiggle room to have anything mean what you want it to mean. You're a fraud, and an intellectual wanker.