Tip Sheet

Gibbs On Climategate: "There's No Real Scientific Basis" Refuting Global Warming

Greg Hengler
Blogger, Townhall.com

Tweet

Click Here!

What's most astonishing is Gibbs' lack of reaction to the list of 31,000 scientists (6,000 of them are PhDs) opposing man-made global warming. It truly is faith wrapped in the name of science.

Tags: Energy and Environment , Global Warming

Breaking on TOWNHALL

Join the Debate

62 Comments So Far

Login in to Post Your Comments

vladimir estragon Wrote: Dec 02, 2009 12:01 PM

Wow, sorry I missed all the fun last night.

"And now with the raw data from the CRU's dataset having been destroyed, we will never be able to conduct a proper examination."

Geeze, all of the data ever gathered about the climate was stored at East Anglia University and NOWHERE ELSE! The things you learn on the internet!

Also, did anybody notice that more and more boneheaded corporations are running shipping lanes north of Canada and Russia, something that's never been done before. Obviously they never spoke to right-wingers on the internet, who would have explained to them that there's MORE ICE THAN EVER.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

arch16 Wrote: Dec 02, 2009 2:56 AM

Vlad I called you tonight!
I gave a call to Vlad tonight to shoot the bull and when the party answered, I asked for Lucky Pozzo. I was informed that I had the wrong number and I apologized.
I guess Lucky was too embarrassed to converse!
Laughter!
I should post Vlad's Phone number for all his friends here on town hall to contact him but even good old Arch is not that evil! After all, Vlad was nice enough to call me on my cell phone and ended up calling me a moron when I gave him my conservative speech! That is the difference between me and him. I am not evil and he is!

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

NOTW Wrote: Dec 02, 2009 2:53 AM

Yet you ignore to acknowledge the posts? And pick out one-liner zingers (out of context)?

(again)

Science Publication; (9:49)
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/hockey_stick/mcintyre_02. pdf

Expert Science Opinion; (11:23)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB200014240527487039394045745 67423917025400.html

Dont be a P-ssie. At least provide evidence you have a pair. You choose to run away with pathetic BS instead so far. Thanks though for providing a example of weakness on the Left.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

NOTW Wrote: Dec 01, 2009 11:24 PM

Back to square one for a moment. You stated that the science is settled in a recent post.

The following is an OpEd from MIT professer Lindzen. A very pragmatic article from someone that has a deeper understanding of this (open up your mind in the rear of your behind);

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB200014240527487039394045745 67423917025400.html

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

NOTW Wrote: Dec 01, 2009 9:50 PM

What part of this below do you not get?

The info is at home on the other computer. When Charlie Brown is done with his latest 'unprecedented' moment, I'll get back you on that.

In 3rd grade english...I will get to the stored information when I get home. Copice Pizano?

In the meanwhile, you can enjoy this. Its old and kind about the wishful thinking. (I will bet 20 bucks you decide its best to tear down the dissenters). Since then it has been shown that the Mann was a a bit more nefarious about it. Also note that the IPCC models are all heavily influenced by Mann.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

NOTW Wrote: Dec 01, 2009 7:03 PM

Yes, it was my point brought to you. If you chose to ignore the discussion of long term cycles, then your argument on AGW is incomplete.

As mentioned before, you focus on minor points without delving into the bigger picture. Is it a lack of visionary aptitude? You do get brownie points for evasiveness if its not.

The info is at home on the other computer. When Charlie Brown is done with his latest 'unprecedented' moment, I'll get back you on that.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

NOTW Wrote: Dec 01, 2009 2:35 PM

Becuase I asked you to defend Mann and his wishful thinking 'science' several times (in fact I have asked every liiberal here to explain him away. Zero response on that one). He is implicated in all those emails with the CRU now as well. It was the cornerstone of AGW argument until it was shown everything was manipulated. And it speaks to the very issue of long term climate cycles.

The information on solar cycles are only a '30 second' or more search away. You don't seem to have any problem finding info when you want to refute someone. So I know you are not that stupid. Since no one is giving me a Govt Grant, be a big boy and find it yourself.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Ray from Bloombergia Wrote: Dec 01, 2009 12:50 PM

NOTW,

I forgot the Roman Warming altogether!! DUH!! That was when the trade routes East were open all year and the passes were ice-free to India, right?

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

NOTW Wrote: Dec 01, 2009 12:40 PM

There is a thought in that analogy. You're not much for music are? (That'd require a soul which you admit doesnt exist).

There are several solar cycles to which I am speaking of in those approximate timespans above. Lets pretend you are astute in math and understand how various sinusoidal curves can amplify one another. That was all in reference to you noting that short cycle inn an earlier posting was a trend. Its shortsighted to think 21 years defines a trend, especially when influenced by longer solar cycles.

Speaking of longer cycles, You never bother to defend Mann's big lie with his hockey stick graph being so manipulated that he flattened out both Roman era and Medieval era warming. But thanks for continuing to...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Ray from Bloombergia Wrote: Dec 01, 2009 12:36 PM

were in the THIRTIES!!!! During the Depression. NO air conditioning to speak of and NO SUVs. Gee!! I wonder WHAT caused it? Hmmmm. The Sun? Naw, too simple and obvious.

Ever HEAR of the Medieval Warming? From about 900-1400AD (NOT "C.E." you dolts) Europe got REALLY warm. They grew GRAPES in England for God's sake. Vikings crossed the North Atlantic in open boats! Glaciers receded and trade expanded.

Then about 1405 it started to chill BIG TIME. It got so bad that by the end of the 18th century the French wheat and rye harvests were a joke and millions starved almost to death. Rather than plant potatoes, yams and turnips as the KING suggested the idiot French peasants insisted on growing MORE grains.

Then they...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Exeye Wrote: Dec 01, 2009 11:25 AM

EVERYTHING you are basing your voodoo warming on is made up. It's like arguing about unicorn populations.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

NOTW Wrote: Dec 01, 2009 2:03 AM

Cute retort.

Guess you dont eat salad? (asked you long ago to explain that 'liberal diet' you mentioned in another post).

Dont pretend to be so stupid. Run several varying Hz together. Sometimes you get music, sometimes noise or 'off-note' deviations. So far, AGW is noise. When it actually 'sings' a pattern that shows its louder than GW let me know. (If that is above you, you are tone-death to the bigger picture and your 1/3 missing is showing).

Global Dimming was first noticed the 4 days the earth stood still after 9/11, when the loss of contrails altered temp deltas at the surface. The same liberal leftie nutters are behind this hypothesis. At least they've been very transparent, as scientist ought to be,...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

NOTW Wrote: Dec 01, 2009 12:42 AM

Lets not oversimplify short cycles. Among the sinusoides in the mix are also a spotty 11 year (pun intended),an 87 year, and even a 1500 year cycle. All of these bend the curve and none is about AGW. The IPCC decided though that it was only about half its actual story being told (Those emails will tell the other story).

Ironic that the very pollution which is guilty is providing a significant dimming effect on the watts/m2 making it in. If science confirmed that the GW is solar driven, Man would actually be cooling the earth...Ironic (and plausable). Global Dimming is a measured effect caused by Man, that much has been shown.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

arch16 Wrote: Dec 01, 2009 12:01 AM

grace writes: Monday, November, 30, 2009 11:44 PM
Wingnut deniers still wrong
http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/article /732009---permanent-arctic-ice-vanishing

The ice is THINNING, wingnuts. Wrap your pea brains around that.

Arch says

Grace. No it isn't. It is growing immensely! You have been duped by corrupt scientists who have been caught in their filthy lies through their e mails. Even then you still believe them! Something is wrong with your brain Grace. Even I admit when I am wrong!

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

NOTW Wrote: Nov 30, 2009 11:57 PM

Trend or Cycle?
That 21 year average coincides nicely with the 22 year (Hale) solar cycle. Just before that, all the talk was about the next "ice age".

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Saint Nick Wrote: Nov 30, 2009 11:45 PM

http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/article /732009---permanent-arctic-ice-vanishing

The ice is THINNING, wingnuts. Wrap your pea brains around that.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

NOTW Wrote: Nov 30, 2009 11:14 PM

Stand corrected at 11%. And did note its not a trend...

Just reading some more of those interesting emails unearthed. An excerpt from CRU director Phil Jones to Mann (of hockey stick graph fame);

"...to keep them out somehow (reports)-even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"

These are really good reading...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

albert henry Wrote: Nov 30, 2009 10:45 PM

The game of chess is finally been outdated, and I suggest just one change. We remove the bishop's, and replace them with scientist. In theory, they would move exactly as bishops, but in reality, with no data to back them up, they would be all over the place and have more power than the queen.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

NeoConScum Wrote: Nov 30, 2009 10:00 PM

What folks here are basically saying in response to your swill is that you are impossible to over-caricature. Comprende?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Riders on the Storm Wrote: Nov 30, 2009 9:31 PM

"Why does the far left have to have a potential diaster that always requires vast government intervention to solve the preceived crisis?"

That's the nature of modern-day fascists. They don't like warfare, so taking control militarily is now passe. Instead they achieve their totalitarian goals by fear-mongering. "The earth is warming, the earth is warming!" "They're too big to fail!" "The uninsured are dying!"

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

JAG CA Wrote: Nov 30, 2009 9:19 PM

basis to question global warming or would that be climate change? How many years of cooling must by before anyone can dare raise a question?

Why did they change the name of this global disaster in the making from global warming to climate change? When their d@mn hockey stick got stuck in an inconvenient place!

John Holdrin, our messiah's science advisor, is a man who was completely fooled by Paul Ehrlich and his Population Bomb idiocy in the sixties.

Why does the far left have to have a potential diaster that always requires vast government intervention to solve the preceived crisis? Their wanting unlimited power drives all other considerations including lying, maniputlating, concealing, dumping, erasing, etc....

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

carol1983 Wrote: Nov 30, 2009 8:48 PM

Trying to disprove a negative premis is a logical impossibility.

You would be equally correct to say "There is no scientific data which disproves the existance of the Tooth Fairy".

Come on Mr. Gibbs. You are full of horse manure. You are not versed in logic argument OR you are but you are mincing about in deliberately misleading rhetoric.

Often I don't worry about keeping the discussion in the realm of aristotilian logic. For those times "Liar Liar. Pants on fire" works fine.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Nee2 Wrote: Nov 30, 2009 8:25 PM

If it's cold where I live tomorrow, uh, we call it winter! Imagine that, what a freaking phenomenon!!

And you know, there's some ice melting going on all the time. Here's one for you...In Norway, where some caps are melting, they are finding arifacts showing there were inhabitants BEFORE the ice caps which leads to the belief that it was much hotter, once. Another phenomenon or simply a cycling of temps?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

NOTW Wrote: Nov 30, 2009 8:14 PM

There was 27% more Artic ice this October(at its anual low) over its low in 2007. Hardly a trend. In a few years we'll most likely see that we are back in a cooling cycle.

Cycles Happen. Mostly in a sinusoidal pattern.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

inthemajority Wrote: Nov 30, 2009 7:50 PM

9,833 engineers
3,046 doctors
4,818 chemists
581 mathematicians
149 zoologists
59 astronomers
39 climate scientists
------
Cons don't understand what those fancy titles are. I looked up some "doctors" in PA just to see what kind of "doctor" had a strong opinion about AGW. Gynecologists, Opthamologists, PhdEd, Mathematicians. Hate to see the list of BS degrees, but I bet many are political "science".

Cons have to be pretty stupid to be still strutting this nonsense. Zoologists. Come on.

Oh, and while Cons were busy pretending that AGW doesn't exist, more bad news on the Arctic ice.

But don't worry, Cons. It is quite possible that it will be chilly tomorrow morning in your neck of the woods,...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

New comments on this article - click to refresh