Climategate is Still the Issue

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: This week marks the one year anniversary of the release of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that we now know as Climategate.

Sitting here now, one year later, it's becoming difficult to remember the importance of that release of information, or even what information was actually released. Many were only introduced to the scandal through commentary in the blogosphere and many more came to know about it only weeks later, after the establishment media had a chance to assess the damage and fine tune the spin that would help allay their audience's concern that something important had just happened. Very few have actually bothered to read the emails and documents for themselves.

CONTINUE READING:
http://climategate.tv/2010/11/19/climategate-is-still-the-issue/

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• climategate
• jones
• cru
• uea
• global
• warming
• hoax
• fraud
• carbon
• eugenics

[checkyoursources]

The scientists involved were cleared of any wrongdoing by five indepenedent investigations. Not one scientific academy disagrees that human emissions are the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. The Sun has not been the primary driver for decades: Read Lockwood 2008, Frolich 1998, Haigh 2003, Erlykin 2009, Benestad 2009.

[wimahlers]

@TakeItFromThere,

.

"Galileo"

.

Are we back to that red herring again? Again:

Global warming is CONFIRMED by years of MEASUREMENTS of indepedent scientific resources and independent scientific disciplices.

The CURRENT MEASURED global warming is FASTER then any KNOWN natural warming cycle ever measured by many of the SAME scientific techniques. So what is the CAUSE for this extreme rate of global warming? The increasing CO2 is a known STRONG greenhouse gas that corrolates with this rate.

[checkyoursources]

@dudeinco 6C of change since the last ice age is from the EPICA ice core temperature plot although strictly speaking it may be more. Compare the rate of change for the last 100 years (1C in 120 yrs) with the preceeding 10,000 yrs roughly 1 degree of change every 2000 yrs!

[checkyoursources]

@dudeinco Dear oh dear, the number of times monckton has been disproved by his own admittance is many. "skepticalscience Monckton Myths" look it up. Monckton's maths is worse than his lies. p.s. Direct from the WMO 2011: In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998.

[dudeinco]

@checkyoursources And where the hell did you pull your 6C from?

wwwDOTclimate4youDOTcom/images­/AllCompared%20GlobalMonthlyTe­mpSince1979DOTgif

[dudeinco]

@checkyoursources I am limited by my posts, so just read Monckton's debriefing and observe the figures vs. the lies and deceit being propagated by the IPCC and it's cohorts.

[dudeinco]

@checkyoursources And pay attention to this at that debriefing: "The endpoint fallacy: Dr. Rajendra Pachauri likes to use the above IPCC graph to demonstrate his contention that global temperatures are rising at an ever-increasing rate. The deception relies upon the careful selection of endpoints for each successive linear regression.

However, a glance at the IPCC’s own graph of global temperature changes over the past 150 years demonstrates that this is not the case"

[dudeinco]

@checkyoursources scienceandpublicpolicyDOTorg/m­onckton/temperature_and_co2_ch­ange_briefingDOThtml

I'd say "check your sources" and follow the trail.

[dudeinco]

@checkyoursources In reference to the *ACTUAL* 8 year downturn in temperature:

"A few years’ downtrend cannot be naively extrapolated. However, taken with the fact that the 30-year uptrend was at a rate below the uptrend observed in the 1920s and 1930s, the current downtrend notwithstanding the continuing and increase in CO2 concentration indicates a growing likelihood that CO2 cannot be influencing surface temperatures to the extent imagined by the IPCC."

[dudeinco]

@checkyoursources So show me your alternatives that are truly viable, and we can discuss from there. Is taxing everyone on their carbon footprint solving something? Can you show a correlation between over-taxation and reduced usage throughout history? This is the stand the IPCC and the US (fall in line) is taking. How does this help this planet or your fellow man (assuming they aren't a paid constituent of the IPCC)?