With the freedom of information act, more information is coming out, and none of it is good. Still, some people have bought into this junk science and refuse to see the evidence right in front of their noses. Case in point:
by Flos
Feb 17 2010
11:40 PM
The IPCC is simply an org put together to assess all the other science being done in the world and to report based on that. It doesn't even do any primary science on its own. You all speak of it as if it does actual science. It doesn't.
If you're going to fully debunk AGW theory, you're going to have to go to the source and debunk the actual science reports and sites that I mentioned before - i.e. NASA, Royal Society, Environment Canada, World Meteorological Organization, Scientific American...I could go on...
One fallacious report (i.e. the Himalayan one) and some questionable emails does not debunk the theory of the consensus.
So we have a denier (HA), and they are too vested in their point of view to even bother reading the excellent links posted by other posters.
This one is very interesting and it is part one of four, so I await the other three parts.
by GrungyOldVan
Feb 17 2010
11:34 PM
www.nasa.gov/.../GISS.html
pajamasmedia.com/.../climategate-2-0-%E2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%E2%80%94-part-one
Just up on WUWT...
=====================
Copenhagen was meant to seal the deal before this info came out... If Copenhagen went Binding, none of this new email gold would have been noticed by people...
This is the link to the article, new emails that have just been released by NASA two years after the request was made.
In August 2007, I submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed by long-time Gore advisor James Hansen and his right-hand man Gavin Schmidt (and RealClimate.org co-founder).
I did this because Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century. NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S. temperatures beginning in the year 2000. My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.
NASA stonewalled my request for more than two years, until Climategate prompted me to offer notice of intent to sue if NASA did not comply immediately.
On New Year’s Eve, NASA finally provided the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) with the documents I requested in August 2007.
Read the whole thing. That's only part one, also at the site is a link to the files NASA released, so you can read them too. So "Flos" has his fingers stuck in his ears and a blindfold on, while singing "Sticks and Stones". It's more like Humpty Dumpty having a great fall, than a house of cards. Either way, global warming's goose is cooked. HA! (Okay cheesy I know, but it's late).
4 comments:
Cool. You are trying to debunk Global Warming with quotes from "Flos" and "GrungyOldVan"! What, SassyLassie wasn't available for comment? HA!
Poor SQ! Poor, poor gentle little SQ. The man mad global warming bandwagon's wheels are falling off, it's proponants are being exposed as frauds. It was a con job from the get-go and the SQ's of the world are the real ones caught up in denial, hurling insults at those of us who have the audacity to point and laugh as they stand there red faced with their pants down. I myself will be relentless in reminding the stupid and gullible that they were scammed into beleiving my SUV is killing polar bears! HA yourself, SQ. I hope you didn't blow your savings on carbon credits and donations to the WWF. HA!
He's proving that they, like you, have your heads up your arces.
AGW is a religion. Your stubbornness to acknowledge the gaping holes in your theory underline this fact.
SQ, I don't think Hunter implies anything from the commenter's other than one of them speaks in terms of suggesting FACTS but provides nothing to back it up.
The other commenter, backs up his/her position with REAL TIME FACTS that contradicts Flos assertions, entirely.
That, I believe is the point of this whole debate. If an individual has not done due diligence from both sides, they have no credibility.
For anyone to be still stuck believing AGW is the gospel would fit in that category.
The evidence of a hoax is profound and the whole thing is a "house of card".
Post a Comment