Shady

Yes of course I do. And speaking of Denmark's climate... "Denmark has a maritime climate and milder winters than its Scandinavian neighbors. It hasn’t had a white Christmas for 14 years, under the DMI’s definition, and only had seven last century." Global warming for the win! LOL!

That's not true. New oil is being discovered all the time. But even if that's the case, no one is talking about natural gas. It's cheap, cleaner, and as efficient. And most importantly, quite plentiful. Which provides us with plenty of time for technology to make things like wind and solar more efficient and less expensive. Also, more nuclear power would be nice as well. It's a win-win situation. Clean power, and provides jobs.

Don't you just love irony! Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight. Mother nature sure has a glorious sense of humour!

Harper doesn't need to prorogue parliament. The vast majority of Canadians couldn't give a rat's ass whether some Taliban detainees were ruffed up. They care about jobs, jobs, and jobs. That's all right now. The opposition is wasting its time. This is a complete non-issue.

Of course, why reference Fox News when you can reference groups that hide declines, use tricks, and fudge factors instead! Oh, Greenland's typically disucussed in relation to the Arctic? Sorry, I wasn't aware. But whatever you true believers need to do to make your argument stronger, by all means. Any idea whey GREENLAND, which got it's name because of it's green temperate climate, was green back in the day? Was it SUV's and coal burning plants used by the Vikings? All you're doing is posting the same British corrupted "research" of the same ilk as the CRU and EAU. If they don't like the fact that the antarctic ice has been growing, don't blame the messenger, perhaps they need to talk directly to the glaciers, and tell them to behave! Nope. My claims are sound. And the only models which include hiding, tricks and fudge factors are by your Messiah's of EAU. They only have themselves to blame for their ruined credibility. However, I rarely see the dedication and loyalty from other true believers, as has been shown by you and your comrades in this forum. For that you should be commended.

This is why you're branded with communist. Meanwhile, over at Copenhagen: "When he (Hugo Chavez) said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening." “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation. Link You speak the exact same language my friend. Or should I say, comrade.

He's right. You cannot guarantee equal outcomes. Everyone has different interests, talents, ambitions, etc. You're a communist. If you don't like our Canadian economic system, I suggest you leave the country. I'm sure you'll like Cuba or Venezuela much much better.

Another Climategate bombshell. Michael H, and the rest of you. Get your excuses ready......NOW! Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations. The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration. Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research Link And then there's this beauty of an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann (probably taken out of context of course! ) UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann. Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. Cheers Phil Just more dissenting views crushed by the likes of Jones n Mann. Another example of "peer review" that the true believers want us to value so much.

Another example of the type of boorish behavior associated with AGW true believers. Filmmaker has object thrown at him during interview at Copenhagen. Come'on people, we need dialectic!

You're exactly right. Scientists who's work is used to formulate policy that lowers our standard of living should be eligible for class action lawsuits should their work be found incorrect and/or faulty. I think it's only fair. It would prevent much of the current shenanigans going on.

You're the skeptic. So is Michael H. You're both presented with clear evidence of malfeasance, yet you're skeptical, and refuse to believe it. Why? Because you don't want to believe it. Because it goes against your politics and ideology. So you sweep it aside, making excuse after excuse for every new drop of dishonesty that becomes available. The original data's been deleted - probably taken out of context. I'll delete our data if they find out about the freedom of information act - must be taken out of context. Hide the decline - must be taken out of context. Apply a trick - it's just a statistic and scientific term Can't find the reason for the lack of warming - must be take out of context. Warming models with programmed "fudge factors" - must be an explanation, we just need to wait and see what they tell us. There's a credible study contradicting warming, please help me discredit it, and make sure it's not published - must be taken out of context. Do you see how foolish you all look?

How does one reasonably explain dishonesty?

Because I don't care why they've been dishonest. It doesn't matter to me what their motives are for wanting to fudge the numbers. All that matters is that they have. Why does it matter what their explanation is anyways?

Yeah, can you imagine people having problems and questions with language and practices such as "fudge factor?" I mean, it's nothing AIG didn't do, right? Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered "Other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years. A comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007." Link Arctic Ice to Last Decades Longer Than Thought? This year's cooler-than-expected summer means the Arctic probably won't experience ice-free summers until 2030 or 2040, scientists say. Some models had previously predicted that the Arctic could be ice free in summer by as soon as 2013, due to rising temperatures from global warming. Link I tell ya, I'm shocked! Can you believe their model was off? Where have we heard that before? Perhaps if they constructed models without "fudge factors" in them, they'd be a little more accurate! And... Report: Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking "Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap." Link Does growing sea ice in Antarctica bode well for the future? "The area covered by Antarctica's sea ice has indeed expanded over the past two decades." Link Um, shouldn't you "experts" already know this?

Yeah, so? There were reasons for the Watergate break in too. It doesn't mean it's right. I'm not sure why you keeping defending abhorrent behavior from these so-called scientists. There are definitely explanations for cameras being turned off, microphones being unplugged, and models being programmed incorrectly. These explanations have been staring you in the face for weeks now. But for some reason you refuse to take notice. I really don't understand it.

They aren't melting. In fact, the antarctic ice is growing. Besides, ice has melted in the past, and it wasn't due to "man-made" global warming.

Here's part of it. "In two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the "correction" is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the "adjustment" routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or she wasn't kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I'm familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you. Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement): yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor These two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding "fudge factor" (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960), but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU's "divergence problem" also includes a minor false incline after 1930." Link

Has anyone checked out the source code of the CRU's computer models? It's laughable. Video

Actually, peer review means absolutely nothing. The peer review process has been corrupted, by the same dishonest individuals who've corrupted the data, and who's emails and dishonesty have been shown to the world. The true-believers use "peer review" as a crutch, in an attempt to prevent their entire house of cards from falling. But peer review is as much of a hoax as AGW itself. Peer review is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

I agree. I don't think any of those industries should be oppressed by emission controls and targets. I want a vibrant Canadian economy. I want every Canadian who wants a good paying job, to be able to acquire one. I don't want us destroying our standard of living, over junk science manipulated by a small group of dishonest people. Do Tories love the oilsands? Goddamn right!

Exactly! Which underscores the relevance of the Obama 50 Bush 44 poll.

Well, we do have Al Gore refusing to answer the question. But anyhow, what about the first clip? It's context is all there.

Your constant Reagan comparisons are both wrong, and tiresome. "In comparison to the approval ratings for modern elected presidents in December of their first year in office, Obama's standing is the worst, though he's close to Ronald Reagan. In December 1981, Reagan's approval rating was also 49%, though Reagan's disapproval rating was a bit lower, 41%." Link Did you read that punked? Obama's standing is the worst, ever! He's CLOSE to Reagan, but Reagan's disapproval rating was lower than Obama's. Stop spinning, you're wrong, and you lost.

Corporate tax rates are much different than income tax rates. The "rich" still pay income tax. But I'm not sure what you're talking about when you suggest that the poor pay for the rich to keep their money in Canada. By definition, if they're poor, they pay little to no income tax at all. At the same time recieving some type of government assistance, as well as free healthcare etc. They get MUCH more than they pay into the system. So your entire premise is false.

No, not in this thread. There are a multitude of AGW threads already in existence, in which I and many others have provided detailed arguments. I simply wanted to illustrate the pro-AGW side, and their reluctance and refusal to actually discuss the issue.