An inconvenient truth.... or lie?

I didn't notice your message 45. That's why in message 77 I gave them a link you download all the emails from my account. I will keep freely distributing these emails until someone actually give me direct quotes from them to support their claim of this international fraud. They can shove these quotes up my ass all they want.But then of course, if they can't support their claim with quotes from the emails and yet they continue to make the accusation, it is now a libel or slander, which is a lie. If they can't give me direct quotes and not apologize, I will rightly call them liars from now on.Added by edit.Just watched fox news last night. Hannity was saying, and I quote, "now that we've proven conclusively that global warming is a lie..."And yet this liar couldn't even give us a single other quote from the one that's involved the word "trick" that everyone has been using. We've shown conclusively that this particular quote is taken completely out of context.Seriously do these christians not follow their own 10 commandments? Thou shalt not lie, freakin liars.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Fine if you don't have time to read all the emails. Surely, these blogs you link to have quotes from the emails. Just copy these quotes and cite them here. You said "questionable ones" so I'm assuming you know of at least 2 questionable emails. Surely, these blogs you link to have them cited. Like the old saying goes, show us the money.Added by edit.I didn't even need to go read people's blogs. I saw these quotes directly from major news networks and immediately saw right away that they were shown out of context. I've done everything from scientific research to law enforcement. As you can see, the professions I have gone through required me to write reports (lots of them). I can recognize misquotes from a mile away. Goodness knows, my police reports have been taken out of context on multiple occasions. In one instance, a blood sucking lawyer even tried to confuse me with my own report. I had to point out to him that the sentence he was quoting meant something completely different from what he was claiming if taken in context with the very next sentence. After I pointed this out, he played dumb and pretended he didn't understand. I spent the next 30 minutes explaining these 2 sentences and their context in regard to the event. It's a game that lawyers often play to try to confuse everyone in court, including the LEO.As you can see, I'm particularly sensitive about this issue of misquoting people. I think it's immoral. I think people who advertise these misquotes are shameless liars, especially after being shown that these are misquotes.But I'm willing to be shown wrong. All you have to do is bring some quotes from these blogs you are so fond of. Show us from the emails where the conspiracy is.If you can't produce these quotes, I think the moral thing for you to do is apologize for the accusation. That is if you're really as moral as you claim to be.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

No, it's the same message. I'm just a lot more blunt than them.It took literally hundreds of millions of years for the Earth's biosphere to gather up all the carbon and put them in the ground in the form of fossil fuel. It literally took us 200 years to release them back into the atmosphere. What do you think happens to all that carbon if we suddenly stop all our carbon burning activities? They don't just magically disappear.And let's admit it. The world's economies are based almost entirely on carbon. The resistance to change from capitalists to a greener economy will be nothing short of an all out political and financial war.Personally, I'm pessimistic on this front. But I've been known to be wrong once or twice in my life time

HA!

quote:

---

I've just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's t hide the decline

---

Looking at the whole email...

quote:

---

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

---

First of all, I'm not going to pretend I know what the hell any of this means. And neither should the liars. I'm sure someone else can do a better job at interpreting this email than I can.What I can say is I've written lots and lots and lots of reports in other areas. I know what the word "trick" means in scientific lit, and it's definitely not what the liars want people to think. It means a clever or a different way at interpreting the data. It doesn't mean change the data or committing fraud.The hide the decline part could mean anything. Why do they insist on it to mean hiding the decline in global temperature? Look at the email again. It looks like climatologist lingo to me. Why do I say this? Because when I communicate via email with other cops, I use cop lingo that could be misinterpreted by dumbfucks... I mean civilians. It doesn't mean we have a vast conspiracy to enslave the civilian population.There you have it. I don't know what the hell the email means since it's written in climatologist lingo. But I do know that it could be interpreted in a hell of a lot of different ways. I'm sure there will be a press release soon from the scientists to explain what the hell it means.

quote:

---

The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.

---

The whole email as well as previous emails...

quote:

---

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/...if/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:

​

extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

​

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?

​

mike

​

On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:

​

Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Steve

---

Again, more climatologist lingo. My best interpretation is they're talking about the effects of El Nino on the temperature versus the projected temperature. Again, nothing in there indicates fraud or conspiracy.What I did notice from reading these emails is they're using very casual language in their own climatologist lingo. This is far different from the "secret documents" portrayed by fundamentalists.Who else wants to take a stab at this?

Buz, you've been using this plant thing for a long time now, at least two years since I first saw you used it on here. Not going to bend over backwards anymore for you.The Earth doesn't care whether the atmosphere has more carbon dioxide or not. The plants don't care whether the atmosphere has more carbon dioxide or not. But people do.Based on your logic, might as well say animal life is dependent on water. Therefore, we should flood the whole planet so everything could happily live in water.Here's another one. Praying is good for you. Therefore, people should do nothing but pray all day long.My grandfather used to say: too much of anything is never a good thing. Carbon dioxide may be necessary for the plant kingdom, but as people goes we don't necessarily want too much of it. Ever heard of a thing called pollen and allergies?Added by edit.The fact that you put any message at all here tells me you're still here. Let's discuss about the emails. Someone else has posted a few for you. All you have to do now is tell us what you think. As you can see in the message just above, I freely admit I'm totally ignorant in climatologist lingo. Should be a walk in the park for you to shove it up my ass.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Doesn't surprise me. Every time someone finds out I'm a cop, he always tries to give me advice on how to do my job. It's like people feel compelled to tell me what they think cops should and should not do.

I've been known to give people half a dozen tickets for bullshit violations like improper lane usage and one tail light for reminding me that I work for them. Why? Because the reminder tells me I have to work twice as hard for their tax money's worth. Also, I tend to take my time writing out the citations when people are mouthy. A 15 minute stop could magically turn into a 45 minute wait. And the fun I always have with DUI's and possession of contraband...Zenmonkey, I know what you mean. Like I said in another post, I've worked in research, programming, laboring, teaching, etc. If there's one thing I've learned in the professions I've tried out is that I ain't got nothin' down yet. It's a humbling experience to know that there are people who are far smarter than me and that there are people who can do what I do a hundred times better.This is why I always get cranky on here when I see people who think they're better at the said subject than the experts. It's like one of the criteria of believing in jesus... you have to know everything about every field of human knowledge. It's annoying as hell to watch people practically proclaim "I'm smarter than all those scientists haw haw haw!"Edited by Taz, : Fixed grammar. See? Even in grammar, there are people who can write far better than me.

This is one of the most typical comments made by deniers. Based on this same logic, I could say that everyone here realizes that life on our planet would not exist as we know it without water. Therefore, the commenter implies, we should all go and live at the bottom of the ocean since water is the source of life on Earth.Your comment is as ridiculous as saying the sky is blue or snow is white. While true, it adds absolutely no useful information to the debate while giving a vague leaning toward one side of the debate.Nobody is denying that greenhouse gases were very important to life on this planet. Just like nobody is stupid enough to deny that water is an essential part of life. This doesn't mean that we want to drown in water anymore than we want too much green house gases in the atmosphere.And let me repeat. The planet doesn't care about global warming. Plants don't care about global warming. Most life on Earth couldn't give a rats ass about global warming. But people do.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty - CNN.com

quote:

---

London, England (CNN) -- An independent report released Wednesday into the leaked "Climategate" e-mails found no evidence to question the "rigor and honesty" of scientists involved.

​

The scandal fueled skepticism about the case for global warming just weeks before world leaders met to agree a global deal on climate change at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen last December.

​

The seven-month review, led by Muir Russell, found scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) did not unduly influence reports detailing the scale of the threat of global warming produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

​

"We went through this very carefully and we concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists," Russell said.

---

I want an apology from every person who quote-mined those scientists. And I want Glen Beck's head on a platter.

Bump.Because I have a feeling only a few people noticed my update on the matter because of the dark ages in evc. I also don't want to see people repeating a lie a couple months from now (ahem *buzsaw*).

This is probably the most disappointing part of it all. For a month, they talked about the emails. They only mentioned the correction a couple seconds on their segments.It will be like piltdown man. Decades after the fact and people will continue to repeat the lie saying scientists created the hoax.