The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > No fraud in hacked climate emails > Comments

No fraud in hacked climate emails : Comments

By Geoff Davies, published 18/1/2010

There is no basis for claims that the case for human-caused global warming has collapsed, nor that any climate scientists have been discredited.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Wbong,
the flaw in your argument is they can *see* the science you mention but not AGW. These people need to *see* the evidence.
________________________________

Pericles, spindoc, antigreen

Look at there sites particularly the map they show before and after pictures.
There are over 100 glaciers in the US that have disappeared.in recent times.
Also note the pickies of the permafrost melts. Given the extensive nature of perma frost melting releasing known greenhouse gas, the loss of pastures, desertification and the obvious consequences of the loss of water from the Himalayan glaciers.
The question is how will all the above effect Spindoc's chances of more emotive 'hard earned' $s?

Also check out the data from the satellite "Grace" it measures the thickness depth or ice and water ...interesting stuff.

http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=626&gid=42&index=0

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html
http://asiasociety.org/onthinnerice

These sites show before and after pictures

BTW Pericles The by 30 years was an educated guess from someone who knows the area. What isn't disputable it that the Glaciers around the world are disappearing at unprecedented rates.

What do you think will happen when 2 billion people don't have enough water? Water wars, unprecedented refugees number.

Like the man said "once all the rivers are polluted and the water's gone try drinking $s and eating energy (or the consumer toys)."
Posted by examinator, Monday, 18 January 2010 3:19:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I dont know how Davies can say that no scientist has been discredited when Jones is looking down the barrel of charges being laid against him for clear breaches of the FOI Act 2000 Section 77.

I dont know how he can conveniently gloss over the deliberate and unconsciable acts of vandalism against the Peer Review process, to the detriment of people and ideas he and Mann didnt like.

And then we can come to the concealing of computer code to hide the amatuer nature of their work, and the poor state of the data.

....and on it goes.

Pity about the news item concerning the glaciers in the Himalayas and the evidence for the extreme statements that were made were not the product of Peer Reviewed Research---- contrary to the protocols of the IPCC. ie it was based upon a comment made to the journalist and not much else.

Can it get any sillier
Posted by bigmal, Monday, 18 January 2010 5:29:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pontificator "What isn't disputable it that the Glaciers around the world are disappearing at unprecedented rates." so what, that's just natural climate change.

The issue is what's man made and what do we do if it is - not the natural flow of events.

Unprecedented, compared to less than 200 years of records, oh please, pull the other one.

I don't think that's a good excuse to become hysterical and redistribute the wealth of the west is it, or do you think it is reasonable to go that way?

What really is unprecedented is the CRU scientists corruption of the scientific process and the moral issue that's become obvious of suppressing alternative views - a little harder to digest than natural phenomena.
Posted by rpg, Monday, 18 January 2010 5:58:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would be wise for Geoff to jump off the bandwagon now before he has no credibility left at all.

So now "hide the decline" now means something other than hide the decline.

The emails clearly showed fraud e.g the 'fudge factor' which the author arrogantly didn't even bother to disguise shows a clear mathematical hoax. This has already been established.

Apparently Geoff does not feel that the CRU suddenly 'losing' all the data after Phil Jones constantly refused to hand it over for years is not suspicious?

There's lots of 'smoke' yet the author would have us believe there is no fire and never was. Now he is saying there is no smoke either.

Geoff is a geophysicist who has written a book about economics. The link between Global Warming theorists and lefty social and economic re-engineering is no more obvious than here.

I hear the sound of a collapsing sandcastle.
Posted by Atman, Monday, 18 January 2010 6:04:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well this article exposes the mentality of some who lurk around OLO. I guess ignorance can be sustained for the ignorant, however, when a biologist lurks here – the cheerfully malicious one who provided readers with the crap on DDT, one can better witness the deliberate, downward moral slide into economic recklessness.

While the ignorant are calling for the resignation of the CRU scientists in their persistent bid to remove any obstacles that block their ongoing plans to loot nature, they believe it’s OK for criminals to hack into the confidential emails of the CRU staff. For the ignorant it seems, criminals are men of integrity.

Since the ignorant moralise (24/7) over the “lack” of integrity in climate research, one must conclude that their defence of the fossil fuel industry is instigated by the belief that this industry is flawless, impeccable, exemplary and beyond reproach.

Could it be that those who defend the grim reapers running the fossil fuel industry, are incapable of comprehending the environmental consequences from the operations of this foul industry or even the consequences of the 25,000 square kilometres of oil slick in the Timor Sea perpetrated by FF nincompoops who are "regulated" by political sycophants?

Millions of gallons of foul oil have trashed marine ecosystems in Mexico, Arabia, Uzbekistan, South Africa, the North Pacific, Alaska, Tobago, Russia, Iran, France, Canada, Spain, Kuwait, Italy, Angola, Scotland, Alaska, Australia, Timor etc.

The Prestige oil spill off Spain in 2002 cost $12 billion for the clean up. Five hundred and twenty million gallons were spilled in one incident in the Persian Gulf. Amoco released 69 million gallons off the coast of France. A drunken sailor on the Exxon Valdez trashed the ecosystems in Alaska and Exxon continue to slither out of paying full compensation to the victims.

Yeah right but the ignorant say the “conspiratorial hoax” is in the science establishment?

Yeah right but ignorance is as ignorance does so please spare us anymore of the fake morality.
Posted by Protagoras, Monday, 18 January 2010 7:40:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras,

'Those who would assert, must prove.'

Those who claim to be genuine scientists, must maintain their integrity, or else they have no better case than their protagonists. Galileo, Darwin, Pasteur, Einstein didn't have to 'hide' or fudge data.

Now, they were genuine scientists.
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 18 January 2010 8:36:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy