Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The Cold Snap Disproves Global Warming

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I see. So, your outrage at censorship is reserved only for RC... people who disagree with you.

If I still had my mod powers I would allow the posting. It's a waste of bandwith, but I would allow it.

You can be as butt-hurt as you want but the fact still remains stealclimate.borg are part and parcel of the lies propagated by Jones and Mann as [roven by Mann's own emails.

I would allow your posts but your still a moron for refusing to deal with facts.

[Wineslob]

There is no "normal" level for atmospheric CO2 but we know that the current concentration is about 100 ppm higher than the preindustrial level.

Volcanic eruptions and forest fires increase atmospheric CO2. Your point?

Yes. Oceans provide the largest carbon sink we have. Heat is thought to affect the rate at which oceans absorb and release CO2.

Guess.


second bold:

[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VlSSwErKWQs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VlSSwErKWQs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[The Night Owl]

If I still had my mod powers I would allow the posting. It's a waste of bandwith, but I would allow it.

You can be as butt-hurt as you want but the fact still remains stealclimate.borg are part and parcel of the lies propagated by Jones and Mann as [roven by Mann's own emails.

Oh, TVDOC can do what he thinks is right. I don't need RC. I just don't see the point of censoring it.

I would allow your posts but your still a moron for refusing to deal with facts.

I don't want to play Grammar Cop but... if you're going to call me a moron you ought to mind your grammar when doing so.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Oh, TVDOC can do what he thinks is right. I don't need RC. I just don't see the point of censoring it.

I don't want to play Grammar Cop but... if you're going to call me a moron you ought to mind your grammar when doing so.

You're still a moron.

Better?

[The Night Owl]

You're still a moron.

Better?

The grammar is perfect but now the mood is ruined. Nice going.

[Doc]

Oh, TVDOC can do what he thinks is right. I don't need RC. I just don't see the point of censoring it.

The point of censoring RC is twofold:

First, If we are going to discuss science, regardless of discipline, we must deal with the facts and authentic research that that discipline has to offer.  By discrediting themselves, RC has removed themselves from the discussion of science, and placed themselves squarely into the category of "political advocacy".......

(Plus they pissed me, and a huge number of others in the science community off)

Second,  Removing RC from the discussion illustrates clearly and decisively to all who follow this debate that without RC, and their merry band of reprobates, there is simply no relevant scientific data out there (that TNO can find, and I'm certain he is now Google's best client), that supports the concept (and consequences) of AGW........So we forced to logically come to the stark realization that without RC, and its associates and syncopants.....there is simply no argument for AGW.

In summary, by striking down ONLY ONE "pseudoscientific" point of reference, I've eliminated virtually all of the arguments supporting AGW........That should be the key concept taken away from this action, and subsequent discussion.......

(Plus, in case I failed to mention it, they pissed me off)

doc

ON EDIT:  If TNO (or others) wish to start a thread on purely the political implications of the AGW debate, the inclusion of RC will then become appropriate, so long as the discussion remains political in nature........however, I did ask TNO upthread about his position on the political and economic implications of AGW, and as he did over a year ago, he failed to address the issue.

[The Night Owl]

The point of censoring RC is twofold:

First, If we are going to discuss science, regardless of discipline, we must deal with the facts and authentic research that that discipline has to offer.  By discrediting themselves, RC has removed themselves from the discussion of science, and placed themselves squarely into the category of "political advocacy".......

(Plus they pissed me, and a huge number of others in the science community off)

Second,  Removing RC from the discussion illustrates clearly and decisively to all who follow this debate that without RC, and their merry band of reprobates, there is simply no relevant scientific data out there (that TNO can find, and I'm certain he is now Google's best client), that supports the concept (and consequences) of AGW........So we forced to logically come to the stark realization that without RC, and its associates and syncopants.....there is simply no argument for AGW.

In summary, by striking down ONLY ONE "pseudoscientific" point of reference, I've eliminated virtually all of the arguments supporting AGW........That should be the key concept taken away from this action, and subsequent discussion.......

(Plus, in case I failed to mention it, they pissed me off)

doc

ON EDIT:  If TNO (or others) wish to start a thread on purely the political implications of the AGW debate, the inclusion of RC will then become appropriate, so long as the discussion remains political in nature........however, I did ask TNO upthread about his position on the political and economic implications of AGW, and as he did over a year ago, he failed to address the issue.

This claim that RC has been discredited carries no weight except in denier circles.

[Chris_]

This claim that RC has been discredited carries no weight except in denier circles.

Oh please stop!!

You are being silly.....

I can just as easily (and did) say that without RC the argument for AGW only exists in "alarmist" circles.......

doc

[thundley4]

This claim that RC has been discredited carries no weight except in denier circles.

RC carries no weight except with those that are alarmists and fact deniers.

[The Night Owl]

Oh please stop!!

You are being silly.....

I can just as easily (and did) say that without RC the argument for AGW only exists in "alarmist" circles.......

doc

So, what we thought were our finest scientific institutions are really just alarmist circles? How sad for us.

[Chris_]

So, what we thought were our finest scientific institutions are really just alarmist circles? How sad for us.

Which ones would those be?  IPCC?

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

This claim that RC has been discredited carries no weight except in denier circles.

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don't go
there personally, but so I'm informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd
like us to include.

You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont'get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone...

mike




--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16802-5013

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=622&filename=1139521913.txt


You have your marching orders. Now, move out!

[The Night Owl]

Which ones would those be?  IPCC?

doc

The NAS would be one example of scientific institutions supporting AGW. Does this surprise you?

[Chris_]

The NAS would be one example of scientific institutions supporting AGW. Does this surprise you?

Then you are free to use their research to prove your point.........if they have any........

doc

[The Night Owl]

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don't go
there personally, but so I'm informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd
like us to include.

You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont'get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone...

mike




--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16802-5013

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=622&filename=1139521913.txt


You have your marching orders. Now, move out!

I guess I don't see the point you're making. Would you care to fill me in or should I just assume you're being random?

[The Night Owl]

Then you are free to use their research to prove your point.........if they have any........

doc

Well, you seemed to imply that RC is the only scientific organization out there supportive of the AGW hypothesis. Clearly, that's not the case.

[Chris_]

Well, you seemed to imply that RC is the only scientific organization out there supportive of the AGW hypothesis. Clearly, that's not the case.

Well.....then quit "picking the fly shit out of the pepper", and post their research to prove your point!!

I have posted my rationale for the position for RC in some detail........stop whining about it, and move on.......or admit that you don't have an argument without RC.......and if you do that I'll open the thread to links to RC, and the membership can spend their time laughing and poking you with a sharp stick........

Take your choice..........

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I guess I don't see the point you're making. Would you care to fill me in or should I just assume you're being random?

MAJOR PREMISE: Mann is a proven liar.

MINOR PREMISE: Mann's emails show he used stealclimate.borg to promote his lies and suppress conflicting research.

SYLLOGISM: stealclimate.borg has no credibility.

[The Night Owl]

Well.....then quit "picking the fly shit out of the pepper", and post their research to prove your point!!

PDF: http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate-change-final.pdf

I have posted my rationale for the position for RC in some detail........stop whining about it, and move on.......or admit that you don't have an argument without RC.......and if you do that I'll open the thread to links to RC, and the membership can spend their time laughing and poking you with a sharp stick........

As I wrote earlier, you're entirely within your right to censor RC. What I'm challenging is this assertion that RC is somehow out of the scientific mainstream.

[The Night Owl]

MAJOR PREMISE: Mann is a proven liar.

MINOR PREMISE: Mann's emails show he used stealclimate.borg to promote his lies and suppress conflicting research.

SYLLOGISM: stealclimate.borg has no credibility.

100% opinion.

[Chris_]

100% opinion.

Actually, MSB has posted the incriminating emails TWICE in this thread, and apparently you still have not gotten the point.....

doc

[The Night Owl]

Actually, MSB has posted the incriminating emails TWICE in this thread, and apparently you still have not gotten the point.....

doc

There's nothing incriminating in the Mann emails and the fact that Mr. Mann hasn't been fired by Penn State University or indicted or even fined underlines that point.

[Chris_]

There's nothing incriminating in the Mann emails and the fact that he hasn't been fired by Penn State or indicted or even fined underlines that point.

100% opinion......

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

There's nothing incriminating in the Mann emails and the fact that he hasn't been fired by Penn State or indicted or even fined underlines that point.

Yeah, cuz liberals with a money-grubbing power-grabbing agenda are so-o-o-o-o good about policing their own.

By NOEL SHEPPARD
From the Media Research Center

A scientist in the middle of the ClimateGate scandal received economic stimulus funds last June.

As NewsBusters reported on November 28, Penn State University is investigating Professor Michael Mann, the creator of the discredited "Hockey Stick Graph," for his involvement in an international attempt to exaggerate and manipulate climate data in order to advance the myth of manmade global warming.

According to the conservative think tank the National Center for Public Policy Research, Mann received $541,184 in economic stimulus funds last June to conduct climate change research.

With this in mind, NCPPR issued a press release Thursday asking for these funds to be returned:

In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy.

"It's outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he's under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal. Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury," said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project.

Professor Mann is currently under investigation by Penn State University because of activities related to a closed circle of climate scientists who appear to have been engaged in agenda-driven science. Emails and documents mysteriously released from the previously-prestigious Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom revealed discussions of manipulation and destruction of research data, as well as efforts to interfere with the peer review process to stifle opposing views. The motivation underlying these efforts appears to be a coordinated strategy to support the belief that mankind's activities are causing global warming. [...]

The $541,184 grant is for three years and was initiated in June 2009.

Potentially adding insult to injury, Penn State received additional stimulus funds to investigate the impact of climate change last week:

A nearly $1.9 million grant from the National Science Foundation is enabling a Penn State-led group of researchers to continue studies on the potential effects of climate change on the spread of infectious diseases, such as malaria and dengue. The grant is part of federal stimulus funding authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

This grant appears to have nothing to do with Mann's department. However, given the high-profile the university is currently under as a result of his involvement in ClimateGate, it seems absurd that any federal funds involving climate change would be going to this school while it is investigating its chief proponent of this myth.

Maybe more importantly, why are economic stimulus funds being given to a university for scientific research in the first place, especially one with such political overtones?

As NCPPR noted in its release:

"It's no wonder that Obama's stimulus plan is failing to produce jobs. Taxpayer dollars aren't being used in the ways most likely to spur job creation. The stimulus was not sold to the public as a way to reward a loyalist in the climate change debate. Nor was the stimulus sold as a way to promote the Obama Administration's position on the global warming theory...As is often the case, political considerations corrupt the distribution of government funds," said Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the National Center's Project 21 black leadership network.

Despite the obviously controversial nature of this funding and its recipient, I can identify absolutely no media coverage concerning the matter.

I'm sure now that NCPPR has exposed this hypocrisy, press outlets across the fruited plain will be aggressively investigating economic stimulus grants to Mann and others involved in the ClimateGate scandal in order to inform the public about how their tax dollars are being spent.

Of course, I'm not holding my breath.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703657604575005412584751830.html

I guess

[The Night Owl]

Yeah, cuz liberals with a money-grubbing power-grabbing agenda are so-o-o-o-o good about policing their own.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703657604575005412584751830.html

I guess

PSU has not stated that Michael Mann is under investigation. That claim is a lie... or, as you might call it, a rhetorical flourish.

PDF: http://www.ems.psu.edu/sites/default/files/u5/Mann_Public_Statement.pdf

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.aspx