Global Warming backdown

[waldo]

While it doesn't constitute fraud, the behavior is unprofessional and unbecoming. Thus, the UEA investigation may have worse ramifications for Professor Jones.

no - the ruling is very clear, very precise... any ramifications concerning FOI sit with UEA - not CRU (Jones)... that most of the responsibility rests with UEA. The ruling also states that it is premature to conclude that UEA was in breach of the FOI Act... emphasis is also added to state that the issue can't be left in it's current unresolved state, in spite of the 6-month window on prosecutions having been since passed. The committee recommends a follow-up review, possibly by the 'Information Commissioner (ICO)'.

Additionally, the ICO is forcibly admonished for issuing that unsubstantiated press release stating CRU had breached the FOI... you know, the denier shot that immediately rang throughout the denialsphere and into the mainstream (pushed mightily forward via Shady's favourite go-to British tabloid sources).

[Shady]

as far as it was able to ascertain

Not the most strongly worded defense!

But overall, it's not really that suprising. Either was Penn's "exoneration" of that crook Michael Mann. It's just another example of the foxes running the hen house.

[waldo]

keep strong Shady... live to fight another day! ... what's that word, Shady? Exonerated - that's the word!

[Shady]

Uh oh!

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits

NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can't tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) -- the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA's data "was more accurate" than other climate-change data sets, NASA's Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said "the National Climatic Data Center's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate," admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings

Link

Par for the course.

[waldo]

Uh oh!

Par for the course.

you twit! You should really check around before trumpeting more falsehoods. (oh right, another Fox News link)... buddy, the refutations to that piece of shit article started to roll in last night... the article that quotes from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, from the Heartland Institute - both bastions of independent and unbiased denier froth! Move along now, nothing to see here but a quote from a single NASA employee taken out of context, one liberally sprinkled with denial industry flavour.

(besides, the referenced email was from 2007... didn't you just rail on someone for making a reference to 2007 - that it wasn't timely! ... you're just too easy, Shady)

[waldo]

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data

U.K. Panel Calls Climate Data Valid ..... that "worseness"... it's valid

[Shady]

you twit

piece of shit

denier froth

I realize that you're strong believer in global warming, but I don't think the name-calling is necessary. Try and clean it up a little please. Thanks in advance buddy! Sincerely,

Shady

[Michael Hardner]

I realize that you're strong believer in global warming, but I don't think the name-calling is necessary. Try and clean it up a little please. Thanks in advance buddy! Sincerely,

Shady

Rise above, I say.

[waldo]

I realize that you're strong believer in global warming, but I don't think the name-calling is necessary. Try and clean it up a little please. Thanks in advance buddy! Sincerely,

Shady

sincerely... you're a strong denier - in regards your continued overt displays of intellectual dishonesty, your outright lies, your purposely casting doubt and uncertainty on the basis of fabrications, I have no qualms in lobbing an occasional invective... have a nice day!

[Shady]

sincerely... you're a strong denier - in regards your continued overt displays of intellectual dishonesty, your outright lies, your purposely casting doubt and uncertainty on the basis of fabrications, I have no qualms in lobbing an occasional invective... have a nice day!

That's probably because of your religious-like zealotry.

I've only posted information questioning certain data, and certain menthods used by the pro-AGW scientists. I've questioned some of their own practices and words revealed from their own emails. And that to you is somehow dihonest? Have you ever once asked a serious question of some of these scientists? Or do you just take as truth every single thing they say, no matter what?

[Jack Weber]

I love the use of the word "denier"...

As in a Holocaust denier...

Nice try bedwetters.....Take it to Rabble with the other Trotskyites...

Hey Waldo,when's the 5th Convention?

[waldo]

That's probably because of your religious-like zealotry.

thanks for reinforcing my assessment of you

I've only posted information questioning certain data, and certain menthods used by the pro-AGW scientists. I've questioned some of their own practices and words revealed from their own emails. And that to you is somehow dihonest? Have you ever once asked a serious question of some of these scientists? Or do you just take as truth every single thing they say, no matter what?

check out your own dedicated intellectual dishonesty thread... you're a charlatan... by the way, how is your gathering of that, as you described, "mountain of evidence" coming along? Would you like me to post links to the assorted posts where you have left dangling the questions you refuse to answer? You have absolutely no interest in any form of actual debate... your whole existence is predicated upon scurrying about and finding the little denier nuggets of fabricated, dishonest, jaded, biased nonsense... none of which has any scientific basis. That you would posture a sense of integrity or legitimacy in your actions is pure folly.

[waldo]

I love the use of the word "denier"...

As in a Holocaust denier...

Nice try bedwetters.....Take it to Rabble with the other Trotskyites...

Hey Waldo,when's the 5th Convention?

ship long sailed... it's usage within the climate debate arena is a part of the lexicon. Glad you decided to join in on the climate debate... since you suggest anyone that accepts the theory of AGW climate change is, as you stated, "being lied to". Thanks for joining in... fresh meat is always welcome.

[wyly]

I realize that you're strong believer in global warming, but I don't think the name-calling is necessary. Try and clean it up a little please. Thanks in advance buddy! Sincerely,

Shady

my first day on the forum was greeted by Shady calling me names...you are the worst of the worst...

[wyly]

Rise above, I say.

but do not always do...

[Shady]

by the way, how is your gathering of that, as you described, "mountain of evidence" coming along?

I thought I might need a mountain of evidence, but in actuality, it turns out I only need this...

he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades

Link

[waldo]

I thought I might need a mountain of evidence, but in actuality, it turns out I only need this...

he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades

Link

oh my! Shady... is that all you need? Wait, Shady... that's the same link/reference you touted almost 2 months back - here: You didn't know what you were even talking about back then - nothing has changed today!!! Here, I'll take the liberty of re-posting... by the way, that earlier reference I made about you refusing to answer questions - this is par for the course - but one of many left dangling out there. You haven't a clue... I'd highlight the Dunning-Kruger effect but it presumes a cognitive thinking reference point... you're not even there.

Enjoy Shady... enjoy!

Uh oh!?

Science Daily

Quick waldo, damage control, damage control! Sound the alarm! All true-believers to the flight deck! That's all true-believers to the flight deck!

poor Shady - you would presume damage?... you would presume control? Shady... let's have some fun - would you care to distinguish between

1 - the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions &

2 - the CO2 fraction in the air

and while you're at it... what has the IPCC stated concerning the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions... what is in the AR4 report in that regard. Honest Shady, I'm not setting you up - trust me

Why would anyone give a crap what the IPCC stated on anything? They've already admitted to lying on several issues. They're a bunch of crooks and liars.

Shady, you've dropped a blind link where you presume to suggest something relevant related to the "the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions". You must feel it extremely significant given your repeated "damage control" reference. You hold to an underlying premise of casting aspersion towards the IPCC... hence why you were challenged in that regard; i.e. to actually indicate whether the IPCC position/statement would contradict or be accepting to your linked to article's premise. But no problem... given your suggestion, let's eliminate the IPCC position/statement in consideration of your linked article's specific content.

So... that damage control you speak to, Shady. In what regard, Shady? Where is your suggested damage and why is your suggested control needed? In particular Shady, as previously asked Shady, how does your suggestion of damage & control align to your failure to distinguish between

1 - the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions &

2 - the CO2 fraction in the air

[Shady]

Shady, you've dropped a blind link where you presume to suggest something relevant related to the "the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions". You must feel it extremely significant given your repeated "damage control" reference.

No. It's your side that holds extreme significance in CO2 emissionas and fractions. I've only pointed out that by your own standards, significant flaws exist in your premises.

[waldo]

No. It's your side that holds extreme significance in CO2 emissionas and fractions. I've only pointed out that by your own standards, significant flaws exist in your premises.

that's right Shady - that single paper, without regard to it's actual content, somehow... somehow... hasn't thrown the whole debate off kilter. Hmmmm, wonder why?

now, with regard to that article's actual content... just answer the questions Shady - just answer the questions? Speak to those significant flaws you presume that article describes? You haven't a clue - not an ounce!

Uh oh!?

Science Daily

Quick waldo, damage control, damage control! Sound the alarm! All true-believers to the flight deck! That's all true-believers to the flight deck!

poor Shady - you would presume damage?... you would presume control? Shady... let's have some fun - would you care to distinguish between

1 - the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions &

2 - the CO2 fraction in the air

and while you're at it... what has the IPCC stated concerning the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions... what is in the AR4 report in that regard. Honest Shady, I'm not setting you up - trust me

Why would anyone give a crap what the IPCC stated on anything? They've already admitted to lying on several issues. They're a bunch of crooks and liars.

Shady, you've dropped a blind link where you presume to suggest something relevant related to the "the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions". You must feel it extremely significant given your repeated "damage control" reference. You hold to an underlying premise of casting aspersion towards the IPCC... hence why you were challenged in that regard; i.e. to actually indicate whether the IPCC position/statement would contradict or be accepting to your linked to article's premise. But no problem... given your suggestion, let's eliminate the IPCC position/statement in consideration of your linked article's specific content.

So... that damage control you speak to, Shady. In what regard, Shady? Where is your suggested damage and why is your suggested control needed? In particular Shady, as previously asked Shady, how does your suggestion of damage & control align to your failure to distinguish between

1 - the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions &

2 - the CO2 fraction in the air

[Shady]

that single paper

You're obviously not much aware of how science actually works. It only takes a single paper, or single study, or single experiment, to disprove entire scientific theories which at the time may be considered as fact. It amazes me how ignorant you are to the whole scientific process, while at the sametime posting as though you're some sort of scientific expert that shall never be questioned. And anyone who dares question you is met with a litany of invectives.

that single paper, without regard to it's actual content, somehow... somehow... hasn't thrown the whole debate off kilter. Hmmmm, wonder why?

Probably because your AGW heros refuse to acknowledge it. I'm suprised they didn't 'peer review' it right out of existence before it was even published!

That's their modus operandi according to their very own words, in their very own emails. Perhaps that's why we haven't heard/hear more of conflicting papers and studies.

[Michael Hardner]

but do not always do...

Perfection is not a realistic state of being, but it is a goal. I will try to rise above. Will you ?

[Michael Hardner]

You're obviously not much aware of how science actually works. It only takes a single paper, or single study, or single experiment, to disprove entire scientific theories which at the time may be considered as fact.

But it does take awhile for those 'maverick' theories to gain acceptance. Remember cold fusion at all ?

[Alta4ever]

now, with regard to that article's actual content... just answer the questions Shady - just answer the questions? Speak to those significant flaws you presume that article describes? You haven't a clue - not an ounce!

Whats funny about this is you really have no clue either.

[waldo]

You're obviously not much aware of how science actually works. It only takes a single paper, or single study, or single experiment, to disprove entire scientific theories which at the time may be considered as fact. It amazes me how ignorant you are to the whole scientific process, while at the sametime posting as though you're some sort of scientific expert that shall never be questioned. And anyone who dares question you is met with a litany of invectives.

classic Shady deflection! Answer the questions, oh "Great Deflector"... answer the questions.

Probably because your AGW heros refuse to acknowledge it. I'm suprised they didn't 'peer review' it right out of existence before it was even published!

That's their modus operandi according to their very own words, in their very own emails. Perhaps that's why we haven't heard/hear more of conflicting papers and studies.

as before, you haven't a clue... and you ignore the biggest one I gave you. Again, as I asked you, does the IPCC AR4 position align with the effective results of that paper? Why... yes... it does! Your masterful understanding doesn't even fathom what you're talking about. As per norm, you're speaking out of your ass.

oh my! Shady... c'mon... tell us what that paper's all about - bring down your hammer! Explain the significance you think the paper holds. It's all in the questions you're too afraid to acknowledge - to simple-minded to pursue/investigate. Think Shady... the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions versus the CO2 fraction in the air

save yourself, Shady! Back away, back away... it's all in the questions, it's always been in the questions. Here, have another whiff:

Uh oh!?

Science Daily

Quick waldo, damage control, damage control! Sound the alarm! All true-believers to the flight deck! That's all true-believers to the flight deck!

poor Shady - you would presume damage?... you would presume control? Shady... let's have some fun - would you care to distinguish between

1 - the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions &

2 - the CO2 fraction in the air

and while you're at it... what has the IPCC stated concerning the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions... what is in the AR4 report in that regard. Honest Shady, I'm not setting you up - trust me

Why would anyone give a crap what the IPCC stated on anything? They've already admitted to lying on several issues. They're a bunch of crooks and liars.

Shady, you've dropped a blind link where you presume to suggest something relevant related to the "the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions". You must feel it extremely significant given your repeated "damage control" reference. You hold to an underlying premise of casting aspersion towards the IPCC... hence why you were challenged in that regard; i.e. to actually indicate whether the IPCC position/statement would contradict or be accepting to your linked to article's premise. But no problem... given your suggestion, let's eliminate the IPCC position/statement in consideration of your linked article's specific content.

So... that damage control you speak to, Shady. In what regard, Shady? Where is your suggested damage and why is your suggested control needed? In particular Shady, as previously asked Shady, how does your suggestion of damage & control align to your failure to distinguish between

1 - the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions &

2 - the CO2 fraction in the air

[waldo]

Whats funny about this is you really have no clue either.

hey, back from your Earth Hour revelry? The same questions are there for you, wunderkid... c'mon, take up the Shady cause. Show us you've more than a drive-by mouther - step up!