Climategate 2.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
A lot of hot air is all it is.
 
All I can see is another attention-whore thread that was started by the OP. Sigh. :roll: Way to command any respect. Not.
 
Interesting. Maybe people are not quiet aware of this climate hoax and the back door dealings for political expediency? I'd rather focus on the topic if people are interested. I guess they have other interests then.

:dunno:
 
TheWriteAlex said:
It's cool, I know you're poisoning the ground water with conservative arsenic and ideology, so we're even. :wave:
Click to expand...

Interesting. Yet folks seem more interested in going after AD members than to discuss or even agree to disagree but instead go into these mini apoplectic episodes of fits. No one is forcing anyone to read. *shrug*
 
kokonut said:
Interesting. Yet folks seem more interested in going after AD members than to discuss or even agree to disagree but instead go into these mini apoplectic episodes of fits. No one is forcing anyone to read. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Nah. How many different people have posted in this thread? Not very many. It's not a topic of much interest to anyone, so it's really easy to see WHY you are posting more of these threads. I think my original post in this thread was right on target, sorry you don't like that.
 
kokonut said:
Interesting. Yet folks seem more interested in going after AD members than to discuss or even agree to disagree but instead go into these mini apoplectic episodes of fits. No one is forcing anyone to read. *shrug*
Click to expand...


No, we're just not interested in entertaining you anymore. Instead, we're going to have you entertain us. Or, more accurately, we're going to entertain ourselves at your expense.
 
AlleyCat said:
Nah. How many different people have posted in this thread? Not very many. It's not a topic of much interest to anyone, so it's really easy to see WHY you are posting more of these threads. I think my original post in this thread was right on target, sorry you don't like that.
Click to expand...

That's fine if it's a topic that is not much interest to some people. There are lots of threads posted in AD that don't get much attention or interest. I certainly do not bother to go there. What's your purpose to post it in here then if you're not interested in a topic? Rather curious. Mine is to discuss Climategate 2.0. And yours is....what?
 
kokonut said:
That's fine if it's a topic that is not much interest to some people. There are lots of threads posted in AD that don't get much attention or interest. I certainly do not bother to go there. What's your purpose to post it in here then if you're not interested in a topic? Rather curious. Mine is to discuss Climategate 2.0. And yours is....what?
Click to expand...

images
 
Hmm...collusion.

In 2007 the NRC did a review on the state of climate science with two examples on the effort squash any scientific dissent.

From Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.:

Excerpt:

date: Mon Feb 28 08:58:57 2005
from: Phil Jones <REDACTED>
subject: Re: CCSP report review period
to: Ben Santer <REDACTED>

Ben,

Good to see you if briefly last Wednesday ! The rest of the meeting was rather odd. Some very odd things said by a few people – clearly irked by not having got a couple of proposals recently ! I’m not supposed to be contacting you ! I would urge you to write up what you presented on the day and in the report. It was the most convincing presentation and chapter of the report. You should have less to do than the other chapters. Not yet sure how the summary will fare.

We didn’t discuss the email evidence (as you put it) nor Pielke’s dissent. We shouldn’t and we won’t if the NRC people have their way.

I was never really sure what the point of the review was.

Cheers

Phil
Click to expand...

This is a remarkable e-mail since it indicates that the NRC was in collusion with Phil Jones to suppress issues that I brought up as lead author on the CCSP chapter 6. Chapter 6 was tasked to focus on what further research issues need to be explored to reconcile surface and tropospheric temperature trends. Chapter 6, as it was on August 11 2005, is given in Appendix B of my Public Comment.

The e-mail also documents an inappropriate communication between a member of the CCSP committee (Ben Santer) and a member of the NRC review committee (Phil Jones).
Click to expand...
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress....behavior-by-the-us-national-research-council/

Interesting but not surprising since those things were a recurring effort to try and squash any dissenting views from other scientists.
 
My question; where is the outrage over this breach of privacy? If this was Sarah Palin's Yahoo account, there would be death threats!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top