The have more.
The saint(s) who have a trove of UEA climate science e-mails didn't release all that they had a couple of years ago. They've released more over the past week, and it seems there's even more to come. I've not had a chance to look at even the salient ones carefully, but those who have are reporting that "They're real and they're spectacular!"
Anthony Watts here.
Forbes here.
Delingpole at the Telegraph here.
The internet changes everything. Frauds like climate scientists can't operate under cover anymore. The bought-and-paid-for mainstream media can't protect these fake scientists.
The release of this information is work of great courage and integrity. Bless the person or persons who are releasing this information.
The saint(s) who have a trove of UEA climate science e-mails didn't release all that they had a couple of years ago. They've released more over the past week, and it seems there's even more to come. I've not had a chance to look at even the salient ones carefully, but those who have are reporting that "They're real and they're spectacular!"
Anthony Watts here.
Forbes here.
Delingpole at the Telegraph here.
The internet changes everything. Frauds like climate scientists can't operate under cover anymore. The bought-and-paid-for mainstream media can't protect these fake scientists.
The release of this information is work of great courage and integrity. Bless the person or persons who are releasing this information.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI've heard that the hackers are Russians. If so, that would make sense, as the Russian economy, such as it is, is based on the export of oil and natural gas. Anything that affects Russia's ability to export increasing quantities of fossil fuels is regarded as serious.
That said, I don't take much notice of selective leaks of sections of private emails taken out of context.
I've previously challenged you on several occasions to prove that AGW is bogus. A challenge you persistently ignore.
AGW is based on logic. Greenhouse gases work by retaining heat within the atmosphere and causing warming. Increasing the level of greenhouse gases within the atmosphere will cause increased retention of heat and cause increased warming. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Humans have caused the CO2 levels to go from 270 to 390 ppmv due to the burning of fossil fuels containing carbon which hasn't seen the light of day for at least 100 million years. Therefore, humans are causing global warming over the temperature the Earth would otherwise be.
Michael, all you have to do is disprove any one of the above statements, and you've disproved AGW.
Please stop, Michael. I know you want to make the world better, but it's becoming dangerous. These people can kill you if you expose their conspiracy. Watch for the black helicopters.
ReplyDelete@bach:
ReplyDeleteWhat's this "based on logic" crap? This is about analysis of empirical evidence and about scientific integrity.
And I do believe in AGW. I have no doubt that fossil fuels have increased global temps at least 0.00000000000000000000000000001 degree over the past century. No doubt.
We're just left to haggle over the details, and whether we empower people like you to control our lives.
Egnor: I've not had a chance to look at even the salient ones carefully, but those who have are reporting that "They're real and they're spectacular!"
ReplyDeleteThis is the essence of Egnorance stripped to its basics. You clearly have no idea about the emails, but you've heard from some partisan hacks that they disprove climate science, so you propagate the rumor.
Hardly the first time, definitely not the last.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteYou haven't done what I've requested you to do. Why won't you? And temperatures have increased around 1C since 1850, so that's about 0.7C per century. That's considerably more than you assertion. I won't justify your flippant remark by counting the zeros to the right of the decimal point.
You're talking about empirical evidence, but harping on selective quotes from private emails taken out of context.
It's also ironic that you talk of 'control our lives' when you subscribe to a creed which involves the surrender of one's decision making faculties to a mythical autocratic tyrant who will punish us for eternity if we do wrong.
@bach:
ReplyDeleteAll quotes are out of context. That's what quotes are.
We fill in the context. In this case, the context is that we are reading a criminal conspiracy.
AGW is like Darwinism. It’s an art disguised as science. It’s the art of fitting the data, any data, to a theory and then calling the theory fact and putting it on the agenda. As one great US President once said: “You cannot fool all the people all the time”.
ReplyDeleteAGW and Darwinism can’t fool us!
Pépé: I agree, but you forgot to mention vaccines, round-earthism and 9/11.
ReplyDeleteI've not had a chance to look at even the salient ones
ReplyDeleteSo, as usual, your opinions are based upon nothing of substance. Put on a little more clown makeup. Maybe if you put on some big floppy shoes as well someone will pay attention to you. I know you are sad, lonely, and desperate for attention.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteQuotes are appropriate when their meaning isolated matches their meaning in context. There's a famous case where your friends at the Discovery Institute took an entire paragraph from the Richard Lewontin review of Carl Sagan's book 'A Demon Haunted World' in the New York Review of Books, and completely got the meaning wrong (google it to find it, David Berlinski used it recently and patted himself on the back for quoting it in full, but not mentioning its source). What you need to do is to read the paragraph, I think it was before the quoted paragraph, which noted that a lot of science is counterintuitive, but still true, such as a pungent cheese consists of nothing much more than quarks, colorless, odorless, tasteless particles.
And no, it isn't a criminal conspiracy. What is a criminal conspiracy is that your Discovery Channel bought the rights to the BBC series 'Frozen Planet' and refused the last episode on global warming, as being too controversial.
I've seen the episode. It isn't controversial. It makes two points. As the Earth warms and ice and snow disappears from the Arctic in Summer, the Earth's albedo drops and reinforces warming. The second is that as the Antarctic ice shelves melt and breakup, the glaciers are no longer obstructed and flow faster into the sea causing sea level rise. There was nothing on the cause of the global warming.
You still haven't answered my challenge. I'll make it easy for you. With the Sun's size and surface temperature, the Earth's distance from the Sun, an albedo of 0.30 and NO GREENHOUSE GASES, the Earth should have a temperature of minus 18C. With CO2 levels of 390 ppmv, which allows water vapor and methane to exist in the atmosphere, the global temperature is around 15C, an increase of 33C. What will happen if the CO2 level increases to 450 or 540 ppmv?
@bachfiend
ReplyDeleteWhat will happen if the CO2 level increases to 450 or 540 ppmv?
Crops will be about 50% more productive and we will be able to feed 14 billion souls on this God given earth.
If CO2 level were to reach 1000 to 2000 ppm, then we could feed 50 billion, you included!
Pepe,
ReplyDeleteYou're still an idiot. CO2 levels aren't the limiting factor on plant growth. Water, light, temperature and soil nutrients are. Plants have stomata on their leaves which absorb CO2 (good) and transpire H2O (bad). Plants keep their stomata open just long enough to take in enough CO2 appropriate for the water, light and nutrient conditions, so plant growth is independent of CO2 levels over a wide range.
We won't be able to feed 14 billion humans if crops are 50% more productive. Besides being an idiot, you can't calculate. We are barely feeding 7 billion now, so if the crops are 50% more productive, we'd be barely feeding 10.5 billion humans, not feeding 14 billion, you moron.
And that is assuming that the crops are getting enough nutrients in the soil, aren't suffering from heat stress, rainfall doesn't disappear or that insects don't eat the crops. Insects love warm conditions.
Get a brain, you idiot.
Sounds like Pepe wants to return to the days of canabalism. Oh wait, he already consumes the body of Christ once a week. I'm guessing Pepe's brains (with a nice glass of Chianti to swallow it whole without chewing) would be enough to meet 1% of the daily metabolic requirements.
ReplyDelete@backward
ReplyDeleteGet a brain...
Oh, Mister Know-It-All is offended!
William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton University, said:
We are probably better off with our current 390 ppm than with the pre-industrial 270 ppm, and we would be better off with still more CO2. For example, there is evidence that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productive today than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2.
William Happer needs a brain too?
When I read Backward, Troy (a.k.a. Trash) and other Anonymouses comments, I tend to believe Darwin that they are descended from apes...
@backward
ReplyDelete...you can't calculate. We are barely feeding 7 billion now, so if the crops are 50% more productive, we'd be barely feeding 10.5 billion humans, not feeding 14 billion, you moron.
You should take into account that more than 50% of all the worldwide food production is wasted by overfed and overweight developed country inhabitants (more in the USA) that eat like pigs!
Pepe,
ReplyDeleteYou're still an idiot.
I predicted that you would quote William Happer.
Even I'd agree with his statement; 'There is evidence that Californian orange groves are about 30% more productive ...'. Some evidence? Slight evidence? Minimal evidence?
30% over 150 years isn't much. Happer ascribes it to the increase in CO2. Has he considered other factors? The variety of orange grown? Fertilizers? Insecticides? Different irrigation methods? Netting to prevent birds damaging the crop? Just putting in more trees, because more modern transport the orchard it's are limited to selling the fruit in just the immediate are?
I was intrigued by the claim, so I did a google search. All the hits were either to Happer making the same claim on other sites or other bloggers linking to his original claim. Happer doesn't cite a reference, ever.
You're right. We do waste food. I suggested to you earlier that we could feed more if we weren't sqweemish and were willing to eat insects. Grasshoppers and locusts are very nutritious. Are you willing.
Moron.
Also, we aren't descended from apes. We are apes. We have evolved to be apes with large brains. It's a pity you didn't get yours, you idiot.
Backward is calling names again. He says he's an ape and I agree. He really has problems accepting the TRUTH and that infuriates him. He's stuck on CO2!
ReplyDeleteLet's take Will Happer's argument and examine it:
ReplyDeleteBefore the industrial period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 270 ppm. At the present time, the concentration is about 390 ppm, 0.039 percent of all atmospheric molecules and less than 1 percent of that in our breath. About fifty million years ago, a brief moment in the long history of life on earth, geological evidence indicates, CO2 levels were several thousand ppm, much higher than now. And life flourished abundantly.
Here is a chart showing CO2 levels on the scale of a billion years. From it, one can see that Happer is mistaken: carbon dioxide levels were above 1000 ppm not 50 million years ago but somewhat earlier, 100-200 MYA, during Cretaceous. Life was indeed abundant back then.
What else was going on at the time? Well, there were no ice caps at the poles. And the sea levels were 170 meters higher than today. Surprise! That's precisely why we worry about high CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
I am sure Happer understands that. Whether his followers do, I am not so sure.
Oops! Here is the CO2 chart.
ReplyDeletePépé:
ReplyDeleteBackward is calling names again.
Well, what do you suggest? You're insensitive to rational arguments.
Fascinating.
ReplyDeleteA neurosurgeon makes a post on his blog about newly released (and damning) correspondences that further expose the data-rigging of certain mainstream proponents of AGW... and...the response?
Scepticism of pop-science compared to flat-earth / round earth Lilliputian style debates.
NEWSFLASH: The Earth is actually at least and observably 4 dimensional - not 'flat' or 'round'.
Apparently, to question AGW is to be a barbarian! Or worse - a lunatic! To question AGW is compared to being a 'truther' , a deluded person who thinks the US is behind the 9/11 attacks on HERSELF!
Then just to prove the 'science', who could forgo comparing the Christian Host to cannibalism?
positivism once again shows it's intolerant stripes.
crus,
ReplyDeleteour gracious host, by his own admission, has no idea what is in the emails, yet he sees fit to condemn the scientists. This is his typical combination of ignorance and arrogance that we have come to know and love. Our comments are merely a tribute to Egnorance.
Oleg,
ReplyDeleteI'd more or less assumed that when Happer referred to 50 MYA he actually meant 55 MYA, the time of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, due to a massive out gassing of oceanic methane deposits (which leads to increased CO2 levels) associated with an oceanic mass extinction.
Of course, during a climatic catastrophe, your species might survive, but you won't. Humans went through a population bottleneck 70-75,000 years ago with the eruption of a supervolcano in Sumutra, we're reduced to a few thousand couples and almost went extinct.
William Happer's reasoning is suspect in other ways. He asserts that plants do badly at a CO2 level of 150 ppmv. Submariners can survive a CO2 level of 8,000 ppmv. Therefore humans can survive a global CO2 level in the thousands ...
The wonder of that reasoning is amazing. Happer is apparently unable to distinguish the difference between toxic and greenhouse effects of a gas. Or he does, and has such contempt for people such as Pepe that he's willing to produce such spurious arguments.
I honestly wonder why guys like Egnor, Pepe and Crusador think it's a good idea to maximize the number of people on earth and to downplay the damage we do to the environment.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that God will come to the rescue when the going gets tough?
Do you eagerly await the apocalypse?
Do you think it's all a communist conspiracy to control the world?
What the fuck?
As I see it, the people that are worried about global warming and unchecked population growth are worried about the well-being of the people on earth.
Troy,
ReplyDeleteOr as Michael Crichton put it in 'Jurassic Park', environmentalists aren't worried about the fate of the Earth. It can look after itself, and there's nothing that humans can do that will destroy the Earth and all the life on it. Environmentalists are worried about humans. Even if we don't send ourselves extinct, living through a climatic crisis isn't pleasant. 'May you live in interesting times' is a Chinese curse, not a wish of future well-being.
I suspect the ones blasé about climate change and overpopulation are looking forward with anticipation to the 'Apocalypse'.
AGW is junk science.
ReplyDeleteBelievers of AGW can argue all they want. More and more people don't believe this blatant lie!
Here is the link to junk science.
ReplyDelete@troy
ReplyDeleteIn the white corner: ...Egnor, Pepe and Crusador...
In the back corner: bachfiend, troy and a lot of anonymouses.
This fight is unjust. Too much brain power in the white corner!
ID is junk science.
ReplyDeleteBelievers of ID can argue all they want. More and more people don't believe this blatant lie!
Troy,
ReplyDeleteI will answer the kiddy questions for fun.
"Do you think that God will come to the rescue when the going gets tough?"
Do you think 'science' will? How did the going get tough in the first place? 'PROGRESS' maybe?
To answer your extremely childish question: NO.
I think God loves those who help themselves. In the simplest terms possible -just for you, Troy - I think it is God's will that we adapt to nature, not force nature to adapt to us. That does not mean killing our young or building space balloons to reflect the sun. It means learning to live as men and women - NOT machines.
"Do you eagerly await the apocalypse?"
No. I do not eagerly await the end of time and the fall of man. It will come in it's course and when the Creator wills it. I find no need to rush that along. Do you pray for the big crunch or the great disentanglement? Is your fascination with doomsday scenarios somehow related to your beliefs?
"Do you think it's all a communist conspiracy to control the world?"
I am not sure what you mean by "it's". What is 'it is'?
As for the communists having a global agenda: The communists sure seem to think so. You may want to read some of their literature! The idea is called 'Internationalism' - BY the communists.
'Workers of the WORLD unite.." or something like that.
They even have a 'hymn'.
Myself? I think they like to imagine such scenarios, but it is very unlikely to ever be more anything more than a contingency. I hope so, anyway.
"What the fuck?"
Hmmmm.
Is this when the fulfilled atheist says 'Shit happens'?
"As I see it, the people that are worried about global warming and unchecked population growth are worried about the well-being of the people on earth."
Two words: Infantile. Naive.
If some sick bastard wants to breed and cull populations of creatures, let them get a rabbit hutch or an aquarium to satiate the twisted urges.
Try it with my family, in my country, or on my watch and they will get a first hand lesson in population control and a first class ticket to judgement day.
Bach,
"I suspect the ones blasé about climate change and overpopulation are looking forward with anticipation to the 'Apocalypse'."
Sure... because anyone who questions the judgement of 'science' (PBUH) is OBVIOUSLY a lunatic who dreams of the end of days. Please!
How about the ones who are not excited about AGW (the A is the issue) just don't like being LIED to and seeing data manipulated to cause PANIC in order to line pockets. How about THAT as an alternative to your doomsday cult.
FFS People.
"...Our comments are merely a tribute to Egnorance."
ReplyDeleteGas on the fire, Oleg? LOL
I don't think I could even see your comments the first time I posted. My beef was / with the pathetic attempt to assert a religious or doomsday cult reasoning behind AGW scepticism.
The debate is a scientific one, not one of philosophy or theology.
I do not agree with you or Bach position, but I can see the argument. I appreciate that aspect, even if I oppose the position.
I do not appreciate the demonizing and bigoted comments in regards to the personal religious faith of the Doctor. In fact, I find such tactic lazy and cowardly.
Troy-boy wrote:
ReplyDelete"You must not overcompensate for having a small dick."
That's it? That's all you've got? A dick joke? Poor kid. You must be up against a wall.
I suppose I am expected to respond with a line about your mother or sister's satisfaction with my 'dick'? Or maybe about how YOU seem to think it's big enough when I jam it in your @$$?
Would that remind you of your science class snort sessions, or the pot fuelled debates in the quad?
Jesus,kid. Grow up.
No dicks involved. Just balls.
Any attempt to enforce population controls, eugenics, or social engineering here will be met with violent force and fierce political resistance. I hope you can say the same about your region and military.
We defend our people here.
All of them.
troy - boy ROFL
ReplyDeletefunny stuff, Crus
Crusader said
ReplyDelete"We defend our people here.
All of them"
Where is here, Crusader?
Ontario, Canada Anon.
ReplyDeleteIs this when the fulfilled atheist says 'Shit happens'?
ReplyDeleteThe only people here who say "shit happens" are Egnor and his pals.
@KW
ReplyDelete“when I jam it in your @$$?”
Do you know what a metaphore is?
I think not...
Pepe: I think not.
ReplyDeleteWe know. But don't give up trying!
@troy
ReplyDeleteWhat about this?
Suits you very well!