Cancun temperature plunges to 100-yr record low

[DarrinS]

Irony alert

http://theweek.com/article/index/210181/irony-alert-the-unusually-chilly-global-warming-summit





The irony: As negotiators from nearly 200 countries met in Cancun to strategize ways to keep the planet from getting hotter, the temperature in the seaside Mexican city plunged to a 100-year record low of 54° F. Climate-change skeptics are gleefully calling Cancun's weather the latest example of the "Gore Effect" — a plunge in temperature they say occurs wherever former Vice President Al Gore, now a Nobel Prize-winning environmental activist, makes a speech about the climate. Although Gore is not scheduled to speak in Cancun, "it could be that the Gore Effect has announced his secret arrival," jokes former NASA scientist Roy W. Spencer.


The reaction: ClimateGate was "bad enough," says Duncan Davidson in Wall Street Pit, but Cancun's weather is particularly "inconvenient" for global-warming alarmists. It's a reminder that global temperatures have "flatlined" despite rising carbon dioxide levels, "which is decidedly chilling against the concept of hampering economic growth to limit Co2 emissions." Grow up, says Tony Juniper in The Independent. "Sure, it's cold outside," but "the trend data show that the world is warming, that the climate is changing, and that the release of greenhouse gases is the cause." The longer we use every cold snap as an excuse to put off reducing emissions, "the bigger the risk we run. Tick tock, tick tock."

[DarrinS]

EDIT: <can't link the photo> :(

[boutons_deux]

Get a ticket, fly to Cancun, score a AK57 and RPGs on the street market, and murder all these climate assholes. Cock Bros will cover your costs, even advance them.

[DarrinS]

Nonsensical loud noises.

[Wild Cobra]

I just love how God has a sense of humor.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I just love how God has a sense of humor.

you're right ..he gave us you..:lmao

[rascal]

Another example of mixing up climate change with a single weather event.

[boutons_deux]

Extreme weather instability has been one of the predictions of global warming.

[Yonivore]

you're right ..he gave us you..:lmao
But, better than that, he gave us cold weather wherever the Global Warmists tread...

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Another example of mixing up climate change with a single weather event.I think you miss the irony. I think every time they go someplace for a global warming conference, the city has a sudden cold spell... Almost, if not, every time!

That's why I say God has a sense of humor.

Actually, maybe it's not that. Maybe he's showing the libtards they cannot play god!

[Yonivore]

I think you miss the irony. I think every time they go someplace for a global warming conference, the city has a sudden cold spell... Almost, if not, every time!

That's why I say God has a sense of humor.

Actually, maybe it's not that. Maybe he's showing the libtards they cannot play god!
It happened everywhere Algore went, there for awhile.

[Wild Cobra]

It happened everywhere Algore went, there for awhile.
I know, and these libtards act as if we are capitalizing on just one event. Do they ever learn?

[boutons_deux]

Repugs and conservatives, all shills and/or dupes of the carbon industries, "act as if" these weather events nullify 100s, 1000s of years of warming data for various phenomena.

[Yonivore]

Repugs and conservatives, all shills and/or dupes of the carbon industries, "act as if" these weather events nullify 100s, 1000s of years of warming data for various phenomena.
So, if it's "...100s, 1000s of years of warming data...," what the fuck do we have to do with it?

Maybe the planet just gets warmer and colder. Ever think of that?

I seem to recall learning in science class that this here planet we call home has been a whole lot warmer and a whole lot colder -- several times, in fact -- and all before humans ever learned to light a fire.

[Yonivore]

Excellent article by George Will:

Apocalypse Now? Highly Unlikely (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/apocalypse_now_highly_unlikely.html)


Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford scientist and environmental Cassandra who predicted calamitous food shortages by 1990, accepted a bet with economist Julian Simon. When Ehrlich predicted the imminent exhaustion of many nonrenewable natural resources, Simon challenged him: Pick a "basket" of any five such commodities, and I will wager that in a decade the price of the basket will decline, indicating decreased scarcity. Ehrlich picked five metals -- chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten -- that he predicted would become more expensive. Not only did the price of the basket decline, the price of all five declined.
What's that got to do with Anthropogenic Global Climate Change?


An expert Ehrlich consulted in picking the five was John Holdren, who today is President Obama's science adviser. Credentialed intellectuals, too -- actually, especially -- illustrate Montaigne's axiom: "Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know."
The Global Cooling (anyone remember that?) scare is also discussed...

[MannyIsGod]

There was no global cooking scare. The VAST majority of scientific studies published prior to 1980 predicted warming.

[Yonivore]

There was no global cooking scare. The VAST majority of scientific studies published prior to 1980 predicted warming.
Were you alive in the 1970's?


In the 1970s, "a major cooling of the planet" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950" (The New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the "cooling trend" could result in "a return to another ice age" (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" involving "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively). The "continued rapid cooling of the Earth" (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that "a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery" (International Wildlife, July 1975). "The world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age" (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of "ominous signs" that "the Earth's climate seems to be cooling down," meteorologists were "almost unanimous" that "the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century," perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, "The Cooling World," April 28, 1975). Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from central European forests, the North Atlantic was "cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool," glaciers had "begun to advance" and "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974).

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

[MannyIsGod]

Were you alive in the 1970's?

Nope. Fortunately scientists get published which puts their science on record. Using the magical powers, we can go back and look at these published materials in order to ascertain what the scientists believe. Sometimes, it involves complex translation of English into English, but it is entirely possible through the concept of magic.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL @ George Will and his completely out of context references many of which don't come from science studies but popular publications.

Newsweek isn't a scientific journal publishing scientific studies.

[MannyIsGod]

George Will's game is old. He's been doing this bullshit for some time now. Real Climate post dated 2005 addressing him doing the same bullshit.


Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970’s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970’s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.


I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

[Yonivore]

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/


If you can find me a reference saying otherwise, I'll put it here.

Hey, Manny, send him the Nine references from Will's article that predicted catastrophic global cooling.

I lived through the 70's, your source's position didn't see the light of day; much like, today, opposition to global warming is suppressed by the media and liberal elite.

See a trend?

Regardless of what your source's links NOW say, even if published then, that's not what the media was reporting in the '70's. In much the same way, the media is not reporting anything counter to the assertion global warming is occurring, even though that assertion is equally as published as AGW.

Thanks for making an excellent point.

[Yonivore]

George Will's game is old. He's been doing this bullshit for some time now. Real Climate post dated 2005 addressing him doing the same bullshit.



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
I'm not arguing that ALL scientists believed one way or the other. I saying you're being led around, by the nose, by the popular media.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/1970s_papers.gif


So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2. Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

[MannyIsGod]

Hey, Manny, send him the Nine references from Will's article that predicted catastrophic global cooling.

I lived through the 70's, your source's position didn't see the light of day; much like, today, opposition to global warming is suppressed by the media and liberal elite.

See a trend?

Regardless of what your source's links NOW say, even if published then, that's not what the media was reporting in the '70's. In much the same way, the media is not reporting anything counter to the assertion global warming is occurring, even though that assertion is equally as published as AGW.

Thanks for making an excellent point.

LOL @ suppressed. I don't give a shit what the media was reporting. This isn't' about media reporting. This is about scientists being right back in the 70s and George Will continuously trying to say that isn't the case and using it as ammunition against today's scientists.

They were right back then and they're right now. 35 years later people are till having trouble believing it. Amazing.

[Yonivore]

"...So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies..."
My point exactly.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not arguing that ALL scientists believed one way or the other. I saying you're being led around, by the nose, by the popular media.

LOL!!!! You're parroting an incorrect George Will and *I* am the one being led around by the nose media??!?!?!?

Oh shit thats fucking rich!

"You're being led around by the media because the media told me so!"

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

[MannyIsGod]

My point exactly.

Good thing you're listening to the scientists and not George "member of the media" Will!!

:lol !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Yonivore]

LOL @ suppressed. I don't give a shit what the media was reporting. This isn't' about media reporting. This is about scientists being right back in the 70s and George Will continuously trying to say that isn't the case and using it as ammunition against today's scientists.

They were right back then and they're right now. 35 years later people are till having trouble believing it. Amazing.
So, you concede the scientists that now say there is no global warming may, in spite of not getting any media attention, be right?

How magnanimous of you.

[MannyIsGod]

Thanks Yonivore. No really, thanks. This thread just became awesome. :lmao

[Yonivore]

Good thing you're listening to the scientists and not George "member of the media" Will!!

:lol !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They need an "over my head" emoticon...because, you're totally missing the point.

Anyone else want to take a stab and putting some knowledge to "Dumb Manny?"

[MannyIsGod]

So, you concede the scientists that now say there is no global warming may, in spite of not getting any media attention, be right?

How magnanimous of you.

I concede that the 97% of climate scientists who say the opposite are right. You can continue to grasp for straws however.

[MannyIsGod]

They need an "over my head" emoticon...because, you're totally missing the point.

Anyone else want to take a stab and putting some knowledge to "Dumb Manny?"

:lmao

I literally LOLed over this. So good.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I love how the GOP mouthpieces around here parrot anything even if it is inconsistent. So now apparently the Earth is cooling but the warming is not caused by CO2 emissions. Make sure you make it home in time to watch the O'Reilly Report.

[Yonivore]

I love how the GOP mouthpieces around here parrot anything even if it is inconsistent. So now apparently the Earth is cooling but the warming is not caused by CO2 emissions. Make sure you make it home in time to watch the O'Reilly Report.
The only thing inconsistent in here is how the people, who were claiming global cooling back in the 70's, are the same claiming global warming in the 90's and 00's.

I'm consistent. I didn't believe them (global cooling alarmists) then (because of the opposition research to which Dumb Manny so helpfully pointed) and I don't believe them (global warming alarmists) now (because of the opposition research [not to mention all the revealed fabrications and misrepresentations of data] to which Dumb Manny refuses to point today.).

[George Gervin's Afro]

I love how the GOP mouthpieces around here parrot anything even if it is inconsistent. So now apparently the Earth is cooling but the warming is not caused by CO2 emissions. Make sure you make it home in time to watch the O'Reilly Report.

yoni's convinced human activities have zero effect on the atmosphere

[CosmicCowboy]

We could always bring back flourocarbons to counterbalance the CO2.

[Yonivore]

yoni's convinced human activities have a negligible, insignificant effect on global climate
There, fixed.

[MannyIsGod]

The only thing inconsistent in here is how the people, who were claiming global cooling back in the 70's, are the same claiming global warming in the 90's and 00's.

I'm consistent. I didn't believe them (global cooling alarmists) then (because of the opposition research to which Dumb Manny so helpfully pointed) and I don't believe them (global warming alarmists) now (because of the opposition research [not to mention all the revealed fabrications and misrepresentations of data] to which Dumb Manny refuses to point today.).

:lol Yonivore believed the scientific consensus in the 70s but he doesn't believe it today.

If you're against global warming then by all means continue on - I just love the inconsistencies in your bullshit. Go ask George Will what you should believe.

[MannyIsGod]

We could always bring back flourocarbons to counterbalance the CO2.

Not CFCs but there has been recent research about using SO2 in the atmosphere to lower temps but I don't believe it showed it as either viable or likely to succeed.

[Yonivore]

Just quit digging Dumb Manny.

[CosmicCowboy]

Not CFCs but there has been recent research about using SO2 in the atmosphere to lower temps but I don't believe it showed it as either viable or likely to succeed.

Well we could at least kill those pesky phytoplanktons that are giving off CO2

:p:

[ChumpDumper]

Careful, "Dumb Manny" (really?). If you keep pantsing yoni like this he'll really let you have it by putting you on ignore.

[Wild Cobra]

Nope. Fortunately scientists get published which puts their science on record. Using the magical powers, we can go back and look at these published materials in order to ascertain what the scientists believe. Sometimes, it involves complex translation of English into English, but it is entirely possible through the concept of magic.
I see.

You believe in revisionist history!

[ChumpDumper]

I see.

You believe in revisionist history!The hell?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not arguing that ALL scientists believed one way or the other. I saying you're being led around, by the nose, by the popular media.
Yes, the lemmings get lead...

vUvijKNYnfg

ze9diDhqpfY

fwwrx8olUFE

[DarrinS]

Like Manny, I have a lot of faith in those scientists that have published peer-reviewed articles and I take them at their word.


"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." --Kevin Trenberth


"I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple." --Keith Briffa


"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !" --Phil Jones

"Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.

We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code" --Phil Jones

[ChumpDumper]

In which peer reviewed articles do those quotes appear?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Like Manny, I have a lot of faith in those scientists that have published peer-reviewed articles and I take them at their word.


"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." --Kevin Trenberth


"I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple." --Keith Briffa


"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !" --Phil Jones

"Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.

We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code" --Phil Jones

where are the rest of the articles? you cherry picked statements... par for the course..

[DarrinS]

In which peer reviewed articles do those quotes appear?

From emails where they are communicating DIRECTLY with their peers.

If GGAsshole wants the rest of the emails, they are online.

[George Gervin's Afro]

From emails where they are communicating DIRECTLY with their peers.

If GGAsshole wants the rest of the emails, they are online.

so you just posted out of context snipits.... par for the course.


any honest person would put everything out to there to prove their case while a dishonest person wouldn't...


why does your side ALWAYS use ot of context statements to prove their case?

[DarrinS]

so you just posted out of context snipits.... par for the course.


any honest person would put everything out to there to prove their case while a dishonest person wouldn't...


why does your side ALWAYS use ot of context statements to prove their case?


context

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/

[Wild Cobra]

where are the rest of the articles? you cherry picked statements... par for the course..
Isn't that enough context?

[Wild Cobra]

Here's one of them that Darrin posted:

938018124.txt (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=136&filename=938018124.txt)

[George Gervin's Afro]

Here's one of them that Darrin posted:

938018124.txt (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=136&filename=938018124.txt)


The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.

The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming -- two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

In their report, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."

[Wild Cobra]

Nice having the right cronies watching their backs.

A few of those emails so show intentional scientific fraud. Try all you want to white-wash it. You cannot, and look the fool trying to.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Nice having the right cronies watching their backs.

A few of those emails so show intentional scientific fraud. Try all you want to white-wash it. You cannot, and look the fool trying to.


Claims that the e-mails are evidence of fraud or deceit, however, misrepresent what they actually say. A prime example is a 1999 e-mail from Jones, who wrote: "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." Skeptics claim the words "trick" and "decline" show Jones is using sneaky manipulations to mask a decline in global temperatures. But that’s not the case. Actual temperatures, as measured by scientific instruments such as thermometers, were rising at the time of the writing of this decade-old e-mail, and (as we’ve noted) have continued to rise since then. Jones was referring to the decline in temperatures implied by measurements of the width and density of tree rings. In recent decades, these measures indicate a dip, while more accurate instrument-measured temperatures continue to rise.

Scientists at CRU use tree-ring data and other "proxy" measurements to estimate temperatures from times before instrumental temperature data began to be collected. However, since about 1960, tree-ring data have diverged from actual measured temperatures. Far from covering it up, CRU scientists and others have published reports of this divergence many times. The "trick" that Jones was writing about in his 1999 e-mail was simply adding the actual, measured instrumental data into a graph of historic temperatures. Jones says it’s a “trick” in the colloquial sense of an adroit feat — "a clever thing to do," as he put it — not a deception. What’s hidden is the fact that tree-ring data in recent decades doesn’t track with thermometer measurements. East Anglia Research Professor Andrew Watson explained in an article in The Times of London:

Watson: Jones is talking about a line on a graph for the cover of a World Meteorological Organisation report, published in 2000, which shows the results of different attempts to reconstruct temperature over the past 1,000 years. The line represents one particular attempt, using tree-ring data for temperature. The method agrees with actual measurements before about 1960, but diverges from them after that — for reasons only partly understood, discussed in the literature.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Climate change e-mails have been quoted totally out of context
If this was a conspiracy, it wasn’t a very successful oneAndrew Watson We non-media-savvy scientists at the University of East Anglia have learnt a hard lesson this week — the truth is not enough in the face of a media-savvy enemy.

Character assassination is a purely diversionary tactic, but in the hacked e-mails affair it has been spectacularly successful.

How many of us would emerge unscathed if all our private e-mails over 20 years were opened by someone determined to prove that we were up to no good? The hackers have picked choice phrases out of context — and context is all: without it, these statements look awful. In the one most quoted, the director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU), Phil Jones, talks about using a “trick” to “hide the decline”. At first reading, this easily translates as “deceiving [politicians, other scientists, everyone] into believing the world is warming when it is actually cooling”.

But it doesn’t mean that at all. Jones is talking about a line on a graph for the cover of a World Meteorological Organisation report, published in 2000, which shows the results of different attempts to reconstruct temperature over the past 1,000 years. The line represents one particular attempt, using tree-ring data for temperature. The method agrees with actual measurements before about 1960, but diverges from them after that — for reasons only partly understood, discussed in the literature.

BACKGROUND
Saudis seize on 'Climategate' at summit
Is Russia behind the Climategate hackers?
How to gauge success at Copenhagen
Copenhagen's hot air may help cool the planet
The tree-ring measure declines, but the actual temperatures after 1960 go up. They draw the line to follow the tree-ring reconstruction up to 1960 and the measured temperature after that. The notes explain that the data are “reconstructions, along with historical and long instrumental records”. Not very clear perhaps, but not much of a “trick”.

In another e-mail, Jones calls a sceptical research paper “garbage”, and says of this and another, that he “can’t see them being included” in the International Panel on Climate Change report that was being prepared. Such strong reactions are commonplace in academic research. What matters is what actually gets published. Were the papers excluded? No. Both are discussed appropriately in the report. If this was a conspiracy, it was singularly unsuccessful.

Climate sceptics would have us believe that the CRU data is invalid, and that the 20th-century warming is a construct entirely in the minds of a few scientists. This point of view surely has difficulty explaining why Arctic sea ice is declining and glaciers are retreating so rapidly, and why spring arrives earlier and autumn later than 50 years ago.

[George Gervin's Afro]

NASA's Gavin Schmidt: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax." Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. ... There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation. It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Schmidt is a contributor to the Real Climate blog, which has stated that some of the stolen CRU emails "involve people" at Real Climate.

[Wild Cobra]

Poor George.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Jones' email was distorted, "pulled out of context"
Numerous climate scientists have explained that the purportedly offensive terms have been taken out of context. Several climate scientists have criticized efforts to take Jones' email out of context. In a November 20 post, Real Climate's staff, which is made up of several working climate scientists, cited Jones' 1999 email -- which Scott read -- as "[o]ne example" of "instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded 'gotcha' phrases [being] pulled out of context." Moreover, a November 20 Guardian article reported that Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said of Jones' email: "It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating. ... You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something -- a short cut can be a trick." Further, RealClimate.org explained that "[s]cientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to a 'a good way to deal with a problem,' " and that "hiding the decline" refers to a method that is "completely appropriate."

[George Gervin's Afro]

Poor George.

I just kicked your ass so I feel great.. There is plenty more so I'll keep finding them to keep kicking your ass.... but,but,but there not out of context..

poor wildcobra

[Wild Cobra]

George, we agree that 99% of the emails are harmless, and you have plenty to show that aren't a problem. It's that 1% that proves the way they go about AGW is a lie upon society.

[Wild Cobra]

Kicked my ass....

My God, ignorance is bliss. Isn't it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

George, we agree that 99% of the emails are harmless, and you have plenty to show that aren't a problem. It's that 1% that proves the way they go about AGW is a lie upon society.

oh right, the 'the AGW'ers want to destroy the US economy" story..so I guess these scientists are in on it..

and I'm the ignorant one...:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

oh right, the 'the AGW'ers want to destroy the US economy" story..so I guess these scientists are in on it..

and I'm the ignorant one...:lmao
Yes, when you make assumptions about my points and completely disregard them without thought.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, when you make assumptions about my points and completely disregard them without thought.You make your points without thought.

[DarrinS]

I just kicked your ass so I feel great.. There is plenty more so I'll keep finding them to keep kicking your ass.... but,but,but there not out of context..




:downspin:

[Yonivore]

Hey, George; when the global alarmists are spending more time arguing the credibility of their sources than they are preaching the science of their position, they've already lost.

Try again in 30 years.

[LnGrrrR]

George, we agree that 99% of the emails are harmless, and you have plenty to show that aren't a problem. It's that 1% that proves the way they go about AGW is a lie upon society.

Two people emailing has disproved AGW? I don't think that's quite how it works.

[Parker2112]

oh right, the 'the AGW'ers want to destroy the US economy" story..so I guess these scientists are in on it..

and I'm the ignorant one...:lmao

did the terrorists have to be in on 9/11 for it to be coopted by our govt to pass the Patriot Act?

Its not about the science, its about the propensities of your govt. Once you see what they see (every crisis is opportunity) you will understand the danger of such a huge "crisis" (global scale, threatens humanity), and the corresponding opportunity for those in power to use it as an excuse to steal more wealth in the name of public welfare....

and the worst part, it is an opportunity for wealth to be stolen from Americans by those abroad.