|
Post by trbixler on Nov 22, 2011 16:18:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 22, 2011 17:04:36 GMT
I thought about posting it earlier this morning to beat you to it (for once), dang it! Let's hear what the drones have to say about this.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 22, 2011 17:05:29 GMT
Oh mann......1577 by Jones. The US Dept of Energy is in on this as well?
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Nov 22, 2011 18:03:59 GMT
Wait... let me get my popcorn...
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 22, 2011 22:27:37 GMT
The drone just said
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 22, 2011 22:40:44 GMT
Cat got your tongue stevie? You gonna tell us there's nothing to it again? What will be in Climategate 3.0? How about giving us your analysis complete with the most convincing text in the latest email dump that exonerates Michael Mann and gives us confidence that Penn State's coverup of the pedophile was an isolated incident and they are truly interested in only promoting honest science. Looks like what you and your ilk have been calling conspiracy theories are actually a reality show in progress. Bet you thought it was all going to blow over since the last "leak" eh? It's fun to watch a bunch of frauds plan their con jobs.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 23, 2011 1:37:19 GMT
Shoot. Worked all day. Went to get some popcorn, but the shelves were empty. Seems there was a run on popcorn from folks who wanted to munch while this unfolded.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Nov 23, 2011 9:33:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 23, 2011 13:36:53 GMT
There is nothing fantasic at all in this. It does show a reluctance to share information publicly. It does show that folks such as Mr. Cowley?, (California urban island heat), even tho they published factual data, are to be looked down on.
The most important thing is that this shows a mindset of CO2 is the only thing important to be studied, rather than climate as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 23, 2011 13:44:39 GMT
Mr. Green's new "scientific" banter. Penn State locker room banter for their in the showers. "<3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”. <3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc. <3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit. <0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause <2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process <2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task." foia2011.org/
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Nov 23, 2011 18:37:48 GMT
sigurder, I find the emails to be unprofessional but not a smoking gun that disproves AGW or indicative of a scientific conspiracy to perpetrate fraud.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Nov 23, 2011 23:11:51 GMT
"from: Tim Osborn <REDACTED> subject: guidance for weather extremes to: REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED
Hi Bharat, Paul and James, as requested, here’s a little more guidance about the topic of ”Extreme weather events have become more frequent as a result of greenhouse gas induced climate change”, specifically about evidence *against* this statement. First, don’t get too hung up about trying to find articles that explicitly conclude that there are no changes in extreme weather events driven by GHG-induced climate change. The statement you are debating is very firm; it says ”have” rather than ”may have”. So, to argue against the statement you don’t have to prove that weather events have not changed in frequency, you can simply argue that the proof that they have changed in frequency due to GHGs is inconclusive. This may be because observed changes in frequency are too small to be statistically significant, or that causes other than GHGs have not been ruled out. For the latter, some European extremes changes may be linked to changes in the NAO (which is not strongly linked to GHGs) and thus that natural atmospheric fluctuation may explain many of the changes instead of a trend due to GHGs.”
#3276
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 24, 2011 1:24:30 GMT
Looks to me like there is really nothing new here. There is a concerted effort to get folks who go against the grain be tarnished and trashed any way possible.
|
|
|
Post by gboccanfuso on Nov 24, 2011 10:17:44 GMT
Why explain the changes? CME or not CME (http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/)
From a small man in France.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 24, 2011 11:21:50 GMT
Why explain the changes? CME or not CME (http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/) From a small man in France. You will need to explain the significance of your link to ... ... this old man in Australia.
|
|