A Good Question About Climategate

Just a blimp on the radar, nome sane?

McArdle quotes Richard Feynman, approvingly, about reading data: "We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease."

Huh? I thought a "trick" meant you were lying to people. Feynman clearly means a "trick" to mean a way to improve reading the data.

Second, Jillian writes, "even if the data wasn't faked, it could be inherently biased."

You don't have to be a PhD in physics to know that data can't be "biased." Data is data (many "datums"). I'd give her the benefit of the doubt - that it's the SELECTION of data that can be biased - except that she added the word "inherently."

if he can keep even 40% of the congress on his side in 2010, he will have complete control of the US economy because he can veto anything the congress tries to do.

anyone out there think the US voters are going to elect a congress that has less than 40% (really 33.4 %) support for BO and his destructive policies.

the EPAs decision to restrict CO2 emissions is BO's decision. he knows very well it will wreak havoc on the american economy.

do not need congress or treaties to control the US economy.

have not you heard about EPA's decision to regulate CO2 emissions.

that is called a controlled economy and there is nothing we or the congress can do about it.

copenhagen is just a blimp on the radar screen.

anything decided there is irrelevant to the EPA's decision.

liberals demonstrably through history, they have changed things for the worse.

SS - broke
Medicaid - broke
Medicare - broke
stimulus - failed
GW - farce
cap and trade - bankrupt America
entitlements - root of less fortunate suppression.

and so on...

Liberals are a menace to society.

said: No, I'm not a denier, I'm a skeptic, and the opposite of skeptic is gullible. And, doesn't that perfectly describe a "warmer".

Gullible yes, but there is nothing warm about the left -- they are cold and calculated. So, I like to call them "changers" instead -- after all they, changed the GW data, change from cooling (80's) to warming, to climate *change*, change American form of gov't, hope and change, and so on...

Plus the title sounds like a juvenile grade "B" movie "The Changers" -- fits them perfectly.
:)

perpetrated on mankind. Most of greenhouse gas is water vapor. CO2 is only .04%, while water vapor is 97%. Whatta' we gonna' do, eliminate water? Yet these "warmers" tell us that 385 parts per million of CO2 is causing warming! Lets turn the Sun off for a couple of days and if it still stays warm, then we'll believe em'. Also these "warmers" like to call those who disagree with them as "deniers". No, I'm not a denier, I'm a skeptic, and the opposite of skeptic is gullible. And, doesn't that perfectly describe a "warmer".

The proof positive lies in the source code of CRU's models that demonstrates the manipulation of data to achieve the desired result. Naturally, the alarmists want to divert the debate to the meaning of words like "trick" or "hide the decline," because they cannot refute the obvious evidence of manipulation of the data in their flawed computer models.

The other day on NPR they brought up NASA Scientist and Activist, Hansen. It was humorous to hear them validate the conflict of interest.

~Wishful Thinking is poison to science.

Go here and read this by the Ace of Spades.

http://minx.cc/?post=295680

Munckey boy won't read it, but will claim bias. The only bias I see is that the scientists changed things to fit their own bull, I mean bill. heh.

The thing again is that these AGW believers don't see the temps not rising as a good thing. Climate crap is as much a power grab for control as the health care bill is. And it makes me sick that people don't see it.

And he celebrates *Christ*mas.

Will wonders never cease?

Did VR join you?

"That's true. It could well be biased to hide the effects of global warming, by scientists who don't believe there is such a thing."

Yet all one hears about is the George Soros sponsered methods of how to deal with skeptics. Whereas, the "skeptical scientists" have published the bias and how it was formulated.

Again, just one example;

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/hockey_stick/mcintyre_02. pdf

I see you fled the other discussion, where you were getting your a s s handed to you, for this one.

...of a true believer. Truth and facts are irrelevant if they become inconvenient to their political expediency. The neo Inquisitionists just want to make sure their Big Government Inquisitors have the power to force The People to lead the righteous lives dictated by the Great Religion of The Environment. Everyone (except, of course, the High Lords and Priests of Big Government - and their chosen favorites) must live their lives in frugal abstinence of all resources. Carbon footprints by humans must be minimized at all costs - even unto the lives of however many human lives it takes.

But I think Megan McArdle is giving these arrogant know it all's too much credit.

Not having grown up with computers I don't know how to do a LINK.
So let me just do it the hard way, http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/12/glob al-temperature-chart-not-gore-s-movie. The graph will explain, even to "warmers" that they are just takeing what they are told for the truth.

Let me say that CO-2 in the concetrations which are beaing sited are meaningless. In order to become a warming "blanket" the CO-2 would make the atmosphere of our earth unbreatheable.

In order to believe the garbage about warming you must take there word for it. Therefore I ask you,...

in the comments boxes there. This one's a keeper. Thanks, Jillian.

worshippers are relying on faith, not reason. You'd think they'd be more sympathetic to churches.

This scandal has provoked many questions that I believe deserve answers. Among other things, it would seem that information relating to climate change research may have been held back from the public— and key decision-makers, too. This could of course impact the appropriateness and effectiveness of policy that the US, and indeed world leaders, might pursue. Before moving forward, given the potentially significant economic consequences associated with some of the steps under consideration, I personally think it is important to get a handle on all the facts, whether they be good, bad or ugly.

Unfortunately, Barbara Boxer and her colleagues in Congress who seek to pass major cap and trade legislation that analysis shows...

Does this need to be pointed out?

In 2003 this science publication exposed the manipulation of data. Figure 8 is all one needs to see;

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/hockey_stick/mcintyre_02. pdf

I do think that fraudulent data was used ,combine that with human natures tendency to see whats expected and to run with the herd you can wind up with our current global warming mess. A combination of fraud , greed ,groupthink and hubris used by dishonest politcians to increase their power by enlarging the size of goverment. For our own good ,of course .

How could you say such a thing?