Climategate: "Hide the Decline"

[Ross Craney]

I took Physics, Chemistry and higer Mathenatics in college. I read scinetific journals and books all the time. I don't consider scientists beyond reproach, rather I am familiar with the science behind the issues and I have a good idea what I'm talking about. In contrast to your assertion that i never questions the work of other, I've questioned your work and tcmtech's work, and now both are whining about my language, which is perfectly appropriate for this discussion. Ya' just can have it both ways.

A shame a bit more effort wasn't put into spelling

 

[BrownOut]

A shame a bit more effort wasn't put into spelling

I put my effort into getting the facts right. Too bad you don't put effort into punctuation.

 

[tcmtech]

Just as I thought; as one fanatical denyer demands proof, another passes his opinion off as fact and refuses to provide any evidence as demanded of those who support the science. Typical of the know-nothings. If you can't show the rudimentary details of your analysis, then your whole statement is meaningless. Yes I am an adult and I used Google to find that the instrumentation used to measure the trace gases in the atmosphere are accurate enough to measure CO2 well out of the noise floor, but thanks for your absurd suggestion anyway. This is how science is done, wether is chemistry, physics or whatever, numerical analysis is important, bullshitting, opining and obfuscation are not important. No matter how many times you write an opinion, it's still only an opinion, and will not pass for facts, which is the misnomer you repeatedly assign to it. I have studied chemistry and physics at the university level, so you're wrong again to suggest our side doesn't understand these disciplines of science. Your willingness to speculate and write things you have no idea about as though they are fact that can be proven is not only typical of the arguments made by your side, but also indicitive of how willing you are to substiture ******** for truth.

There you go how about that? People get banned for swearing on this site from time to time. Now you can't edit it out and say you did not use the bold print words. Thats what I am getting at.

For what its worth I dont use the rating system around here other than to bump up a newbie who has some good info from time to to time. Any negative ratings you ever got didn't come from me! I dont play that game.

The part I dont understand is that since you came on today you have been after pretty much everybody for any reasons you can possibly find, even punctuation!
I have yet to assert anything I have said on this whole thread as to be the absolute truth and anyone who reads it from end to end will likely see that. I have openly admitted that I dont know many things yet you keep going. I have openly admitted to what reference sources I have thought as being open and relatively honest and you called them meat heads.
I have not directly argued anything against your beliefs or thoughts other than I have my own opinions as for why I believe what I believe and nothing else. Yet your after me again with this.

So, you think the administrators will ban me because of my stance and stated opinions and allow you to call names like "Eco-nuts?" and that's going to be OK? As I said, you're wasting time and space pretending to be the site moderator and say who should be banned and who shouldn't. If my opinions and statements are so far off-base and out of bounds, then why am I getting good reputation for this thread? Evidently, you believe anyone who doesn't swallow your assertions should be banned. From what you're written, it sounds like you've already whined to the moderators about me. Wasamatter? Did I offend your fragile sensibilities?

I never claimed to be a site moderator. Rather I was simply suggesting that you may want to tone it down a bit before you get a kicked out of for a day or how ever long that all, just a friendly suggestion. What they take your likely tone for is their business.

I am openly admitting that I have no gripe, grudge,or conflict with you or your opinions. I do however think your coming of as sounding rather hostile towards people today. I may be wrong but thats how your quoting and statements are reading.

I have done three prior posts since you came on today and not one of them was confrontational or demeaning to anyone. If anything today I took the lower road and played more cautiously with nothing more than general concerns and neutral opinion statements.

However I wont let you ram your ideas and beliefs down my throat and tell me its the right thing. I simply dont agree with you, thats it, nothing else. I dont agree with your belief system. From my point of view its seriously closed minded and fatally flawed.
My opinions are mine only! I have my data and reasons for believing it and no you can't see it either!




Well I have a few hundred pounds of old magazines, garbage, plastics, a few barrels of unknown chemicals, and a car to get rid of so its off to the burner for me since I am an awful person who doesn't care about anything but myself.
Wheres Hitech? Maybe he still has his tire and shingle pile burning. Perhaps I can just toss this stuff on that.

 

[BrownOut]

There you go how about that? People get banned for swearing on this site from time to time. Now you can't edit it out and say you did not use the bold print words. Thats what I am getting at.

Awww did I offend your fragile sensibilities? Oh BTW, name calling is against the rules also, Mr. post police. Should I go back and quote all the times you used "eco-nuts" and similar insults? How about trying to be a grown up and respond to the content of my posts instead of cherry picking a couple of colorful words in the hundreds, maybe even thousands of words I've written. As for swearing, it's pretty mild and probably not worth the space you're taking up complaining about it.

The part I dont understand is that since you came on today you have been after pretty much everybody for any reasons you can possibly find, even punctuation!

I guess you missed the part where he went after the typos I made. But since today, I've been attacked personally about "behavior" "typing" and everything else in between. I anticipated it, and it's OK, but live by the sword, die by it.

However I wont let you ram your ideas and beliefs down my throat and tell me its the right thing. I simply dont agree with you, thats it, nothing else. I dont agree with your belief system. From my point of view its seriously closed minded and fatally flawed.

And yet you seem to be OK trying to ram your beliefs down my throat. You write the same worn-out things about those who support the GW science to be eco-nuts, not knowledgable in Physics, chemestry, over and over and over. I've posted my research on the topic and took action against those who predictable attacked me for it. Guess you'll have to just get used to being treated the same way that you treat others. Maybe you can cow-tow the noobs, but I've been around the block too many times.

As for your calls for moderation, you come on here like someone who enjoys a robust debate, but you're the first one to call for someone's banning for the slightest infraction of what you consider to be the rules. I've made many posts and written hundreds of sentances, and you want the moderators to review me for a couple off color words. Hmmmmm??? And you need to reporoduce them in bold? Why would that be OK, if the language was so bad in the first place? And why on Earth do you think it's your responsibility to make sure I can't edit my posts? If what I wrote was so offensive, then editing would have been a good thing.

PS: Since my language so offended you, I went back and edited them from my post. Now, the offensive language exists only in your own post. Feel better?

 

[Pommie]

Well, if I had to be a judge I would say the climate change questioners won by a country mile.

BTW, I do wonder why there is any need to edit posts 6½ hours after posting. I wonder what it originally said.

Mike.

 

[BrownOut]

BTW, I do wonder why there is any need to edit posts 6½ hours after posting. I wonder what it originally said.

Mike.

Do you really? You might try reading the thread.

 

[tcmtech]

I apologize up front for the long and now rather pointless drag outs. Sorry.
Brownout wanted a good debate so I am giving him one.

As for your calls for moderation, you come on here like someone who enjoys a robust debate, but you're the first one to call for someone's banning for the slightest infraction of what you consider to be the rules. I've made many posts and written hundreds of sentances, and you want the moderators to review me for a couple off color words. Hmmmmm??? And you need to reporoduce them in bold? Why would that be OK, if the language was so bad in the first place? And why on Earth do you think it's your responsibility to make sure I can't edit my posts? If what I wrote was so offensive, then editing would have been a good thing.

PS: Since my language so offended you, I went back and edited them from my post. Now, the offensive language exists only in your own post. Feel better?

The only reason I put them in bold was so you would see exactly what words are frowned upon here. I said nothing in regards to any other names or words you have posted.
I think it was clear that I was only attempting to correct your wording politely. Generalized name calling is allowable to a degree and we both know that. Open profanity is not. Had you politely said oops my mistake, I will correct it and thanks for the heads up, I would have taken it out of mine as well.
Unfortunately instead you then got nasty about it so I am not removing it from mine for the time being. Even now regardless of your removing them they are still YOUR words quoted from YOUR post and reference directly from YOUR post and still traceable to YOU.
I just made the evidence stick because I knew you would cut tail and do the duck and cover from those whom you seem to say you have no concern with.
If my friendly advice is so lowly and cowardly to you put them back and be the man you claim you are!

When this thread gets reviewed I will have no complaint about them being stripped from my quote of you by the correct people and I will take my punishment for it if it was wrong for me to have done so in the way that I did.
But until that point if your so bold and brave about what you can get away with then why did you decide to remove them after I gave a friendly and no harm intended suggestion about watching the limits of what words you can get away with? If your also so wonderfully free to disobey the rules here and put them back and let the guys who your so unafraid of review your handy work.

And why on Earth do you think it's your responsibility to make sure I can't edit my posts?

Because I can! I dont use negative rep points. I go for full out banning. Getting someone tossed for their own actions is much more rewarding.

In my opinion.
You have been trying to box everyone here into a corner to fit what you want with this thread. No one but you has said anything about me or anyone else being nasty or anything else in regards to what I have posted in this thread since you came back today except you. Got it?

No one is trying to win you over and no one here likely has been given all that much more credibility towards global climatic events because of you.
If anything your probably reminding them more as to why they need to look ,read, think and learn for themselves and not listen to the fanatics and word twisting bully's who so profoundly proclaim they are right and every body else is so wrong. Thanks to your efforts here there is a fair possibility that the non believers just gained some more backing! Thanks!

From the begining I have only presented what I personally felt and understood as being true to my beliefs. I also have not pushed my beliefs on anyone but rather have openly suggested that everyone do their own reading and studying and come to their own conclusions. I thought that what I understood was worth sharing and that it could be confirmed by others as well or proven wrong. Either way I have no problem with that.

Over all this thread has presented with some newer and possibly more helpful information that I now need to further read up on and confirm and if necessary then I will need change my views on certain subjects because of that new information. I expect no less of an open mind from anyone else.

As far as your thoughts go everybody may very well be wrong but we have to figure it out on our own and many of us who are trying to figure it out have far more questions than proof and will not chose a direct side until we have more conclusive evidence that WE can see and understand properly.
Some times having no opinion about something because of lack of proper information is far better than screaming the wrong information at everybody and trying to force them them agree with it!

 

[Pommie]

If anything your probably reminding them more as to why they need to look ,read, think and learn for themselves and not listen to the fanatics and word twisting bully's who so profoundly proclaim they are right and every body else is so wrong. Thanks to your efforts here there is a fair possibility that the non believers just gained some more backing! Thanks!

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Mike.

 

[kchriste]

Well, if I had to be a judge I would say the climate change questioners won by a country mile.

So did the Catholic church in 1632.

So how is it all this heavier than air CO2 manages to get to the upper atmoshere ?

How do you define air? There is CO2 in air.

 

[tcmtech]

So did the Catholic church in 1632

So even if the questioners are wrong its going to take how many years to find out?

Most likely just like the Catholic Church and Galileo, the questioners also need another century or so to get their definitive evidence they need to make a decision as well.
So yes basically the same time line as the catholic church went through should suffice.

Good thing your not referring to 1478! (Spanish Inquisition)
(Brownout might already have that covered though. )

 

[BrownOut]

The only reason I put them in bold was so you would see exactly what words are frowned upon here. I said nothing in regards to any other names or words you have posted.

Baloney. I've made solid, verifiable arguments and now you have those words bolded hoping your call for banning will be answered. The reason you have't said anything about any other words is becuase out of the hundres or thousands words I've writtin on this thread, you can't find any other's to gripe about. You're being a plain jack-*** by putting this up there, and you know it.

The only reason I put them in bold was so you would see exactly what words are frowned upon here. I said nothing in regards to any other names or words you have posted.
I think it was clear that I was only attempting to correct your wording politely. Generalized name calling is allowable to a degree and we both know that. Open profanity is not. Had you politely said oops my mistake, I will correct it and thanks for the heads up, I would have taken it out of mine as well.

Well first of all, you're clearly no longer in the real debate, only whining and complaining about a couple words and you're clearly sore that I am capable of making a argument for science, and so you have the need to get me banned for that. You're worse than a little girl. Waaaaa! Ban the bad man! You come across as a tough guy, but your just another bawl-bag who needs the moderators to fight your fights for you. Actually, general name calling is against the rules, not to mentnion they add nothing of value to a technical debate, rather just noise that obscures that fact that you have nothing to add, other than purile outbursts that do nothing to prove your case. But congratulations for turning the debate from things you know nothing about to something you can go on and on and on about, although you say nothing.

No one is trying to win you over and no one here likely has been given all that much more credibility towards global climatic events because of you.
If anything your probably reminding them more as to why they need to look ,read, think and learn for themselves and not listen to the fanatics and word twisting bully's who so profoundly proclaim they are right and every body else is so wrong. Thanks to your efforts here there is a fair possibility that the non believers just gained some more backing! Thanks!

Hardly, more than likely you're whining and wanting me banned will convince peple that those who don't know what their talking about need to mute those who do. You show the heavy handed methods of information suppression, and I think everone knows that. And BTW, other's have made some accurate observations about you way before I ever said anything, Mr. Dos Equies, the most interesting man in the world!

 

[Mikebits]

Well this thread seems to have generated enough heat to melt the polar caps on its own. Needless to say, the topic of global warming does seem to get people hot under the collar and rightly so, as this is an issue of importance.

On the one hand, are we expending massive resources and dollars in preventing a what if scenario? On the other hand, has enough been done to prevent a future water world for our grandchildren?

With such importance in an issue, how does one go about knowing the right direction to take? Do we follow the advice from Joe DJ on AM 760 News radio, or is CNN and BBC a better choice. A cursory search about global warming on the internet leads one down a path that is murkier than the atmosphere in question.

With such a mélange of information streaming its way across the internet, how does one decide what information is fact and which is fiction? Is our college Geology 101 class enough to put us in a place of the informed? Perhaps a Chemistry class allows us the knowledge to say what is right.

For myself, I go with statistics of the consensus. As I may be considered a tree hugging eco-tard one might think I am biased, but please keep an open mind. Current thinking amongst majority of earth scientist is that global warming has increased in the last 100 years due to anthropogenic influence. According to the IPCC

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level”

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

IPCC defines "very likely" as greater than 90% probability of occurrence.”

For those interested, here are a few links that you may find useful.

https://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

https://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

https://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/

 

[tcmtech]

How do you define air? There is CO2 in air.

Answer: This is composition of air in percent by volume, at sea level at 15°C and 101325 Pa.

Nitrogen -- N2 -- 78.084%
Oxygen -- O2 -- 20.9476%
Argon -- Ar -- 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide -- CO2 -- 0.0314%
Neon -- Ne -- 0.001818%
Methane -- CH4 -- 0.0002% Helium -- He -- 0.000524%

Our actual part of that .0314% that we contribute is between 5% and 30% by volume as referenced from reasonable data sources.
That percentage is also biased by the methods and locations of the samples taken world wide. The most likely scientifically plausible number is about 15% give or take. Or about .0047 % of the gross atmospheric volume.
This also correlates accurately to the estimated 470 PPM of total CO2 in the earths atmosphere but it can vary greatly from location to location.

 

[tcmtech]

I also found this recent artical as well.

Man-Made CO2 Can’t Cause Global Warming; It Doesn’t Have the Mojo

North Star Writer’s Group | Candace Talmadge | Jan. 16, 2009
Despite all scare-mongering to the contrary, carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is not the cause of global warming.
To be an agent of greenhouse heating, carbon dioxide (or any) atmospheric gas would have to be capable of absorbing in significant quantities both the sun’s radiation spectrum (the ultimate source of natural heating on Earth) and of absorbing heat radiating back from the Earth (the greenhouse effect).
There is a process to measure a gas’s absorption ability called atomic absorption spectrometry. Suspicious of the entire global warming hysteria, atmospheric physicist James A. Peden put carbon dioxide through just such an analysis. Based on where and how much of the sun’s total radiation output, which consists of light and other wavelengths not visible to human eyes, Peden estimates that carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere takes in no more than 8 percent of the sun’s total radiation.
It’s the same percentage for heat radiated back from Earth. “Man-made CO2 doesn’t appear physically capable of absorbing much more than two-thousandths of the radiated heat passing upward through the atmosphere,” Peden writes. “And, if all the available heat in the atmosphere is indeed being captured by the current CO2 levels before leaving the atmosphere, then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won’t matter a bit.”
Holy cow! Hard scientific analysis finds carbon dioxide not guilty as charged because this gas simply does not have the molecular mojo to play the role of atmospheric heater. The real culprit is water vapor, which Peden estimates is responsible for 95 percent of all greenhouse heating in the atmosphere.
In politics, citing carbon dioxide, whether from natural or human-made sources, for causing global warming is the equivalent of blaming the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Peden is hardly the only skeptical scientist. In December 2007, 100 scientists signed an open letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. That letter had some harsh words about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, saying that its conclusions about carbon dioxide’s role in climate change are “quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.”

 

[Pommie]

The interesting thing is that I was happy to accept that global warming was happening but was unsure of the cause. These emails show a fraud to the extent that I'm not sure the planet is even warming anymore. We can't even trust their data as it appears to be cherry picked.

Mike.

 

[Mikebits]

I also found this recent artical as well.

Consider the source.
North Star Writers Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tcmtech]

Baloney. I've made solid, verifiable arguments and now you have those words bolded hoping your call for banning will be answered. The reason you have't said anything about any other words is becuase out of the hundres or thousands words I've writtin on this thread, you can't find any other's to gripe about. You're being a plain jack-*** by putting this up there, and you know it.

Did i miss a post? This doesn't even make proper sense.

Well first of all, you're clearly no longer in the real debate, only whining and complaining about a couple words and you're clearly sore that I am capable of making a argument for science, and so you have the need to get me banned for that. You're worse than a little girl. Waaaaa! Ban the bad man! You come across as a tough guy, but your just another bawl-bag who needs the moderators to fight your fights for you. Actually, general name calling is against the rules, not to mentnion they add nothing of value to a technical debate, rather just noise that obscures that fact that you have nothing to add, other than purile outbursts that do nothing to prove your case. But congratulations for turning the debate from things you know nothing about to something you can go on and on and on about, although you say nothing

What debate?
You have been pursuing me and bad mouthing me for the majority of the thread that you have been here?

Hardly, more than likely you're whining and wanting me banned will convince people that those who don't know what their talking about need to mute those who do. You show the heavy handed methods of information suppression, and I think everyone knows that. And BTW, other's have made some accurate observations about you way before I ever said anything, Mr. Dos Equies, the most interesting man in the world!

Talk and show data or at least start any way.
I quit playing this game before you even came here today. Until you showed up I thought that this thread had ran it course. Now I am just seeing how far you will really go!

Perhaps you need to take a good nights sleep and re read this in the morning. Your getting very far off topic and rather flat out rude. And your spelling, grammar, and choices of wording are starting to suggest that your stressed out and possibly tired. Just a guess though.

Do I need to start quoting you again so as to prevent you from back tracking and editing your comments towards me? (Never mind I already did.)

By the way I have been grinning all day thanks to you!
You have proven yourself both educational and entertaining! Its all I can ever want from a good debate!
I am rather pleased that the moderators have let this go this far.
Its quite a hole your digging!

 

[BrownOut]

You have been pursuing me and bad mouthing me for the majority of the thread that you have been here?

Yeah right, what else do I do to you in your fairy tale world?

Do I need to start quoting you again so as to prevent you from back tracking and editing your comments towards me? (Never mind I already did.)

You told me I should edit my post, or did you say shoudn't? You can't seem to make up your mind. Either way, I wrote explicitly what I was doing to prevent you from feeling so offended. But if you think you can find something else to whine about, do your best work.

Perhaps you need to take a good nights sleep and re read this in the morning. Your getting very far off topic and rather flat out rude. And your spelling, grammar, and choices of wording are starting to suggest that your stressed out and possibly tired. Just a guess though

There's nothing wrong with my grammer and choice of words. I typically have to read some of your posts over to try to get meaning from then , so sh*t happens. If you have trouble with my grammer, pehaps a class in fundamental reading might help. But you've shown once again you're a master of deception by taking the thread off-topic even as you accuse other of doing that.

Its quite a hole your digging!

Cute! You do jokes, do you dance too?

 

[tcmtech]

Consider the source.
North Star Writers Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oops. Sorry my bad.

I could easily post a counter story that undoes this one if you would like! I found one article that says the earths atmosphere is made up of about 20% CO2 by volume if it would help.

Thats the whole problem with this climate issue, to get any reliable information is incredibly hard. The misinformation is so overwhelming that its easy to end up with all of the wrong conclusions from both sides view.

Just as seen here I used a likely less than creditable source without having realized it. But then again who can tell me or anyone else if this story is accurate or not? It could be completely false or it could be very true. Thats the whole issue I have with this debate. There is so much garbage floating around that its almost impossible to sort out with any great certainty.

 

[kchriste]

So even if the questioners are wrong its going to take how many years to find out?

Hopefully we have the time.