Pachauri has a vested interest in global warming. MILLIONS, and he stands to make BILLIONS. It's widely reported in the India press about his financial interests. Interests that are strangely unavailable to the MSM here. You might say that the silence is deafening.

The science is SETTLED, dammit!

So settled that the scientists destroyed all the original data (won't need THAT ever again!).

So settled that any "minor" discrepancies could safely be ignored...it's SETTLED dammit!

So settled that new data showing NO carbon increase and a worldwide COOLING must be caused by "other influences...it's SETTLED DAMMIT!

The Church of alGore Rising has spoken!

"...worldwide COOLING must be caused by...."

GLOBAL WARMING! Honest, they actually believe that!

You have to be a moron to deny that Global Warming is real. John McCain, GOP nominee for President, campaigned labeling himself as someone who'd work to cure the problem:

The turning point on global warming

By John McCain and Joe Lieberman | February 13, 2007

THERE IS NOW a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it.

The fringe crowd that hates their fellow Americans so much are still denying that Global Warming is real. I suggest we ship those loud-mouthed deniers off to the surface of the sun for further "enlightenment"....

Problem is too many people conservative and liberal fell for the B.S. "Manmade Global Warming" which has magically change to "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". Hell I fell for it at the beginning as well until I had a chance to look at their arguments and found them wanting.

Unfortunately many people can't admit to being suckered. So they go into a state of denial. They grasp at straws and claim their position was something it was not, like changing it to Climate Change. They simply can't admit that they made a mistake.

Hey little stevie...McCain was wrong. Your wrong all the time...so who cares what McCain says.

Steve Green,
Your task is a simple one. All you need to do is provide links to solid scientific data that shows that global warming is indeed a true phenomenon. I don't care what McCain "thinks", I don't care what Obama "thinks", I don't even care what Palin "thinks" on this matter. I want to know what data you can cite to convince yourself that global warning is a true phenomenon. When I was doing my PhD my advisor told me that colleagues may disagree with interpretation of your data, but always make sure that your data itself is true and can be repeated. It seems in the case of climate change some very prominent scientists ignored even that. So, Steve it is now up to you to cite data/paper/study that you consider supportive.

"THERE IS NOW a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening"

FUCKING BULLSHIT GREEN!

Keep repeating that 'broad consensus' crap! 300 earth scientists posted an ad in the NYT stating that the 'science was not settled'.

Go drink your fucking kool aid, asshole.

If the scientific conclusion about AGW was solid and provable, why fabricate data, lose data, massage data, omit contradicting data, shut out opposition from peer reviewed articles, exaggerate outcomes, quote from non-scientific sources as if founded in scientific journals, and generally astroturf the findings that only agree with your views, Steve Green?

As a scientist, I am appalled at the conduct of these scientists. If you did that in my science, you'd go to jail and some have. Why? Because we are responsible for public safety. If we 'fudged' the data to hide the contamination, people would get sick/and/or/die.

How is climatology any different? Apparently it doesn't concern itself with scientific skepticism any more. When it departed from that, it departed from science entirely.

Matter of fact, would you go to an MD with that track record? I think you'd find a new doctor. For once, have an open mind and think about it.

Steve Green's doctor:
Mr. Green, we noticed your EKG shows an arrhythmia, but we've massaged that data and it's not there anymore. We suspect you have several clogged arteries, but don't worry, I read in a science journal (actually it was Southern Living) that you can eat butter and lower your cholesterol in ten years or less.

That swelling and pain in your ankles is a result of too much reading. When you exhale, the heavier gases linger around your feet and cause them to swell.

You are not in congestive heart failure. Go home, have some butter. It's good for you. Don't worry about the fact that I own the funeral parlor in your town. No worries. I'll take care of you cradle to grave.

Kathy that was PERFECT!

Hey Stevie...take a moment to read Kathy's comment, and TRY to comprehend the meaning!

1) the media won't cover it because it doesn't fit their liberal narrative. They have long since given up on actually reporting news. Most Journalism students today report that the number one reason they want to go into journalism is to change the world, not to report the truth.

Since they want to support their liberal world view, AGW is a lever which they can use to force their agenda on everyone else.

Lastly, they won't change this bias until Obama signals that he doesn't support AGW anymore. The MSM is waiting for the coming media bailout that will save what few newspapers are left. They are also waiting for the new form of the Fairness Doctrine that will allow them to actually compete with the conservative media.

AGW is about greed. In the case of the media it is about the greed of preserving their jobs at the cost of everyone else no matter what.

2) Most liberal ideologues like Steve G are now talking about "Climate Change" because that allows them to blame any change on man and therefore passing laws to control the lives of other people is of the foremost necessity. However, the reality is that most people capable of thinking for themselves see this as a crude ruse and aren't buying the crap the libs are pushing any more.

"You have to be a moron to deny that Global Warming is real. John McCain, GOP nominee for President, campaigned labeling himself as someone who'd work to cure the problem:"

You are a moron for posting something so ridiculously stupid! McCain was and still is a RINO first and foremost, therefore anything He utters is politically expedient! Whats Your exscuse? Oh that's right, You worship at the goracles testicle sssssuck salon.

Steve Green,

Who is this "we" you talk about shipping us off to the sun. Somehow I get the feeling "we" does not include a wimp like you. Here is a little suggestion, make sure the "we" is ready for a fight.
Another thing, you seem very angry, has it been a bad week.

" I suggest we ship those loud-mouthed deniers off to the surface of the sun for further "enlightenment"....

Suggestion noted... Your welcome to try, somehow I dont think You'll live to see it thru though. I suggest You come up to My neck of the woods in northern Minnesota and rough it for 47 years of cold, cold, cold, and see if You change Your mind about Warming?

Once again little stevie has scuttled back under his slimy rock.

The earth is only cooling temporarily while it waits for the sunspots to return and for the ocean oscillations to reverse themselves.

But the planet is holding back its revenge against the holoclimate deniers and their racist comments on blogs.

You will pay.

The earth is only cooling temporarily while it waits for the sunspots to return and for the ocean oscillations to reverse themselves.

But the planet is holding back its revenge against the holoclimate deniers and their racist comments on blogs.

You will pay.

17. Posted by Stephen Greene | January 30,
2010 3:18 PM |

Obviously you must have access to a Stargate since you don't include yourself.
So when you post from the planet Retardo are you like the high priest?

Like John McCain, Osama bin Laden believes in global warming and he will blow you filthy neocons up for it.

Peace.

Hey Steve Green, why are referencing John McCain?

You told us months back that we shouldn't be listening to people who are "climatologists"!

Have you changed your mind?

Help us out here. What exactly are todays "rules" regarding who is and isn't qualified to discuss this issue?

It's getting very difficult (not to mention near-whiplashian) following your "logic" on this subject and what we mere pedestrians are to do in assessing the state of our current global climate.

17. Posted by Stephen Greene | January 30,
2010 3:18 PM |

Sock puppet?

If one is just passing through, one still needs to pay attention to detail, or one will show themselves about as fake but accurate as Steve Green as opposed to Stephen Greene.

Stevie,
The carbon footprint of the rockets needed to ship everyone that does not buy into AGW would be horrendous. With a plan like that... clearly you know too, deep down, that AGW is bunk.

Speaking of "rockets", a former astronaut and uncredited NASA employee, introduced as a simple author on a FOX afternoon program today, is floating a NASA trial balloon strongly discouraging private moon mission initiatives under the pretense that footprints from the 1970s will be destroyed and that someone might steal our flag.

Actually, the USA probably never landed on the moon and NASA dreads the possibility that some genius might request fair use of NASA computation tables and flight records that, if they exist, are phony.

Now THAT'S a "scandal"!

s green "You have to be a moron to deny that Global Warming is real. John McCain, GOP nominee for President, campaigned labeling himself as someone who'd work to cure the problem:"

I bet McCain thanks you for the endorsement, but the real issue is did you vote for him?

You obviously lap at his feet on this issue, one of the most important, so it stands to reason you hold him dearly to your heart.

P.S. Nice try at diverting attention from the post, which is typical when you got nothing but just can't restrain yourself from posting anything.

See a doctor, I believe that's called Comment Obsessive Behavior.

But I could be wrong.

It's now official. There's absolutely no conspiracy theory in which BryanD does not believe.

"Actually, the USA probably never landed on the moon and NASA dreads the possibility that some genius might request fair use of NASA computation tables and flight records that, if they exist, are phony."

BryanD is a moron.

Steve

"John McCain, GOP nominee for President, campaigned labeling himself as someone who'd work to cure the problem"

well since you put so much stock in what John McCain said then you have no problems saying no to gays in the military and no problem to no gay marriage and no problem with stopping all abortions right>?

John McCain may have been the republican nominee but he was NOT the conservative nominee. Most of us held our noses and voted for him only because he was SLIGHTLY NOT AS BAd AS OBAMA.

But global warming is real. Obama said it was so and we know that he doesnt lie. Like those CSPAN health care talks, no lobbyists in his administration, all bills would be online 5 days before he signed them, no earmarks and oh yeah GITMO IS closed too.

When one person speaks the truth, the weight of their words immediately eclipses the gibberish of ten-thousand liars such as Steve Green. I give you Michael Crichton:

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period... I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way..."

Wait a minute. bryanD watches the filthy neocon Fox News?

What a hypocrite (said admiringly)! I swear liberals could advocate total sobriety and then get drunk every night without feeling a bit of embarrassment.

bryanD is one of the moon landing hoax crowd?!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Should've seen it coming.

"It would never occur to anyone to speak that way..."

Except Barry Obama and Al Gore....oh wait...their POLITICIANS......aren't they?

Hi-res photo mapping of the moon by NASA occurred last August. After curious delay a few images were released. Please note the high tech use of Windows Paint. Note missing pixels on further pages.

If anyone finds a picture of the LEM, moon buggy, flag, etc, please rub it in my face.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc-20100129-apollo14.html

"Wait a minute. bryanD watches the filthy neocon Fox News?"--klutz1

I'm a regular Captain Cook to you. A Ferdinand Magellan, even.

REMINDER evverbuddy! Follow my hilarious...yet troubling...link.

Per moon hanky panky.

@ about 3:50 into this clip is the smoking gun that causes ALL Nasaphiles to start tacking to port just a wee bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n79Vl7_MtU

Wow bryanD way to read your own link. It says clearly under the first first photo that the 3D objects HAVE BEEN BLOWN UP 8X's THEIR ORIGINAL SIZE (in caps so maybe you'll notice better). That means the resolution on the camera taking these images isn't the high-res one. If you can do simple math (I'd be surprised) then you'd determine that since the diameter of the lander is only about 14 feet (as per your linked article) then you'd figure out 8 * 14 = 112 feet. So by that logic (and this link, also from NASA:http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/spacecraft/index.html) you can tell that the camera being used here is the 100 meter resolution one.

Ok, now back on topic...

bryanD is one of the moon landing hoax crowd?!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Should've seen it coming.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Apparently NASA sees Things. And helpfully labels them. All I see are some missing pixels and bubkis.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/383351main_apollo12_label_full.jpg

"Ok, now back on topic..."
35. Posted by mik

Don't worry. There are 8 climate change posts per week here.

Uh, those aren't missing pixels- they are highlights so you can tell where something is. Apparently you don't know much about imaging so don't worry I'm here to help you (considering GIS is my job). See those word in the right hand corner that say 200m? That is called a scale bar. Now take something 14 feet across (or around 4m according to google). So you tell me, how are you going to discern something 4m across over the scale this image is taken?

Just to give you a sense of scale here is a picture of the Vatican taken by the IKONOS satellite which is one of the highest resolutions available: http://www.satimagingcorp.com/galleryimages/vatican-city-satellite-image-ikonos-high-resolution.jpg
Notice how the cars are tiny specks barely discernible? Now take a light object (the Lunar Lander) and place it against and even lighter object (moon) and you tell me if you're going to see anything. Ain't gonna happen.

It's currently raining white fluffy global warming here in Philly. Get bent, Algore!

Bryan methinks you see things...strange things...maybe you should lay off the booze for awhile.

mike, thanks.

Thing is, though, NASA rolls these pics out as images of something when nothing is visible.

(The Italian space agency in November(?)---before these new pics were released, warranted a one day story on US news stations, saying, in effect, Eureka! We've seen them! Be patient, America, and you won't be disappointed!---Perhaps it was Berlosconi kissing Obama's tail.

Also, in last month's Skeptical Inquirer magazine, shit was being pedalled as Shinola over the exact set of new pics. They, too, were running the line cited in comment 24: Here's proof, it's settled now, no more missions, let's declare it off-limits, an international preserve of some sort should be declared.)

OH, YEAH! The moon rocks (1969-1974?). NASA declared by them that the moon is a dessicated place. NOW we find out there is water EVERYWHERE on the moon in crystalline or elemental forms.

Thanks, again. BTW, I wonder if NASA is employing digital versus optical zoom. Also, NASA is stingy on jpeg format size. The pics look like gifs.

BryanD

"Thing is, though, NASA rolls these pics out as images of something when nothing is visible. "

Would that be like the global warming scientists rolling out articles when they are based on someone doing a master level's thesis and who interviewed guides for their data?

How about global warming scientists who destroy original data after they fudge data and peer review each other's articles?

Grow up BryanD you are embarrassing yourself. Are you like 12 years old?

It doesn't surprise me that brainless liberals believe both in global warming and in moon landing conspiracy theories. Both stem from an inability to understand science and the nature of scientific investigation.

Had either Bryn or Steve been able to understand science they would have understood how AGW is built on cherry picked data and (as we have recently found out) pure supposition. AGW is not science at all.

If they knew anything about the moon landings they would realize that the Apollo missions relied on knowledge of planetary motion (a science dating back hundreds of years of empirical observation) and ballistics (again a discipline that predates the invention of the cannon). The moon landing conspiracies are built on this supposition that we could not have gone there because the science wasn't there and the technology wasn't available. No, the science existed for years, the technology had been developed in WWII and just needed to be applied to the task.

Ignorance goes a long way in the service of liberalism.

"Would that be like the global warming scientists rolling out articles when they are based on someone doing a master level's thesis and who interviewed guides for their data?
How about global warming scientists who destroy original data after they fudge data and peer review each other's articles?"
42. Posted by retired military

No need to convince me. Science has been baked like cake since the time of Scalinger and Petavius. Add underpaid nerds to vested interests in high places, and the world is buried in monographs, surveys, prospecti, and graphs. I just find this particular incarnation of the battle for consensus duller than dishwater.

"The moon landing conspiracies are built on this supposition that we could not have gone there because the science wasn't there and the technology wasn't available."-jim m

N'ah. Technology was there, but the risk of failure was too great. The USA losing face after JFK's throwing-down of the space race gauntlet---remember, the USSR was FAR ahead in 1969---was to horrid for politicians and the state complex to face.

Why "too risky"? Because testing proved the LEM to be unstable and uncontrollable; the Van Allen radiation belt was---at least, theoretically----100% deadly to human life (the Eagle was unshielded); the 600 degree extremes in temperature (-300 to +300F)---the Eagle was uninsulated, space suits were thin and reliant on a glycerol-type liquid incompletely arrayed via tubing between material layers.

Also, technology was probably NOT up to snuff regarding RE-entry of Eagle into an earth trajectory from a full stop. Google "the" video taken re-launch. Rockets by Revell.

But beyond that, NASA has been busted manipulating photo data: identical backgrounds from identical perspectives take years apart: a virtual impossibility. Also camera lens reticules BEHIND foreground objects.

Etc.

THE USA COULD NOT FAIL! And JFK's stupid deadline was mere months away. Vietnam, race riots, anti-war riots, assassinations---there were even machine gun nests guarding the Capitol at the time! Failure was not an option and could not be risked.

Ignorance goes a long way in the service of liberalism.

Service? Hell, it's a pre-requisite.

Steve Greensome-

Do You ever smell the shit You peddle around here?

I suggest a butt plug for Your repugnant flatulence Steve.

I guess actual global cooling is being discrimated against as a second class citizen.

klutz1

That's great! Wish I'd thought of it. Mind if I use it bryanD? At least it's easily pronounceable by people who move their lips when they read. Is that why you made that change?

" I suggest we ship those loud-mouthed deniers off to the surface of the sun for further "enlightenment"....

Sorry Steve, Obama is trying to cancel the Space program!

No Michael, he likes 12 year olds, so you were close...

I don't know why anyone is concerned about the US MSM failing to cover the recent climate scandals.

They failed to cover the leaked CRU emails and the story still took off. And now they aren't covering the IPCC's Pakauri and the phoney glacier and Amazon rain forest stories. And they won't until Pakauri is forced to resign. Then all the MSM will express shock at the surprise. Clark Hoyt at the NY Times will again rationalize why they failed to cover it by asking Times' editors (the guilty parties) and accept their excuses. He will again proclaim: No bias here, just a lack of tuned-in-ness.

In the meantime the story is being covered on the web (in particular WUWT and EU Referndum), the British and Indian press and it is being read and digested by tens of millions of Americans.

The American media is painting themselves into a corner. They are like Keith Olbermann, giving only a one sided story, and watching their circulation, ratings and revenue implode. They complain about the internet, yet they are the ones forcing news hungry Americans to go there for the complete picture.

We simply don't need the MSM anymore.

They have way too much invested in the false prophets of global warming to back track now.

And as #54 stated, we don't need the MSM anymore. The recent election in MA made that perfectly clear. Citizens are educating themselves as to the issues without having to resort to the MSM.

"I don't know why anyone is concerned about the US MSM failing to cover the recent climate scandals."- CB

If you want to know how the climate change issue achieved status as consensual "fact", i.e. claiming Center, rendering discussion more or less superfluous, look no further than GW Bush.

In 2000 he flirted for votes with the global warming constituency and loaded his EPA with global warming advocates. This in turn built up expectations resulting in the Kyoto Protocols kerfuffle. It also led to flip-flops and flip-flop-flips during his 2004 re-election campaign.

Bush essentially isolated most of his own base as neanderthals in the eyes of even the more centrist and friendly working press (beat reporters).

Was this all to furnish plausible denial for backstage energy deals run out of Cheney' office? The velvet glove to mailed fist?

Either way, Bush hobbled his own cred, paving the way for a series of important electoral defeats by the Republicans to the global warming politicos who control the conversation now.

"Either way, Bush hobbled his own cred, paving the way for a series of important electoral defeats by the Republicans to the global warming politicos who control the conversation now."

Not much longer BryanD. Not much longer. Times are a changing....thanks to your Obami. So funny.

bryanD,
Since I was heavily involved with the EPA during the Bush administration I call BS on your last comment. I don't know where you get your 'information' but it isn't reliable.

Because the EPA is a gov't agency it is heavily staffed by liberals, many were continuously frustrated by GWB and his appointees. Some of the top guys simply retired early in frustration.

I point to the arsenic standard as an example that was public information at the time. Clinton lowered it to a standard that would have perpetually thrown states like NM with naturally occuring levels higher than the 'new standard' out of compliance. GWB, went back to the original standard and the media went wild - GWB is poisoning out drinking water - remember that? And we're all dead from arsenic as a result - NOT.

GWB has no gloved hand with a hidden AGW agenda - he knew he was dealing with a hostile media.

But if you want a real conspiracy to investigate - did you know that you were once just a twinkle in your father's eye that your mother didn't understand?

"Not much longer BryanD. Not much longer. Times are a changing....thanks to your Obami. So funny."
58. Posted by Michael

Eh. I can't picture defenestration in the cause of liberty from climate taxes in this country. Too many prisons. Too many comfortable people. (I use "comfortable" in place of physically lazy.)

I can BryanD...any world you want is a world I don't want. The rule of imbeciles(libs) is coming to an end.

Kathy,

Bush appointed Christie Todd Whitman as EPA chief....*eyeballing you silently*

The August 2004 Bush flip to trade-off liberal regard for concrete Republican love/votes in re-election...

What can I say: publicly, it was centrist Bush in 2000. New World Order. Third generation DC political climber. He had a script. Some might call it a Destiny.

Then Cheney took the wheel.

You need some serious help there BryanD. BDS is not something to ignore.

Bryan, I was there. You are wrong. Christie remained how long at the EPA and why? If you knew the answer to that you wouldn't spout such foolishness.

After TIME has been running big time lies about GGLOBAL WARMING and CLIAMTE CHANGE their silent on this climategate scandal the whole IPCC should be disbanded and these climate scientists should be canned this reeks at fruad

"Bryan, I was there. You are wrong. Christie remained how long at the EPA and why?"-kathy

My point is/was that Bush is responsible for ALLOWING THE *PERCEIVED* CONSENSUS REGARDING EFFICACY OF GOVT ACTION TOWARD CLIMATE CHANGE PHENOMENA to be wrapped around the objecting side's (his(?)/Republicans') neck.

Time capsule, Feb.2002:

http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/response_bushpolicy.cfm

Okay, Bryan, now that you're caught in a mistake it's now about perception. Ok. Whatever.

Pew - wow - not like they'd have a bias - when you talk about perception you have to deal with bias, that's why facts are discussable, perceptions are not.

The fact is GWB did not do what you said he did. Period. Not a perception - a fact.

"Okay, Bryan, now that you're caught in a mistake..."-kathy

I answered correctly: global warming advocate and general busybody and taxoholic, Christie Todd Whitman, was head oF the Bush's EPA.

THEN, you ask ME some watercooler question about Whitman's personal motivations(?).

"...it's now about perception. Ok. Whatever."-kathy

My points on this thread have always been concerning the status of the issue in the public square (ruled by perception, underlain by government goals, timetables, and public moneys). The hook was someone's complaint of the MSM and why IT was responsible for deceiving the public by framing the issue against counter-reporting. I say that Bush made it appear out-of-the-mainstream NOT to be "open-minded" toward man-made global warming issue.

"Pew - wow - not like they'd have a bias - when you talk about perception you have to deal with bias, that's why facts are discussable, perceptions are not."-kathy

All right. Link to a contemporaneous article or blog post concerning the issue that you trust and which counters my linked article in the particular fashion you desire.

Not that you won't find one, but I'll bet the Bush partisans' will be found absent or whistling past a graveyard.
Just a guess.

BryanD...let go...it is alright...take your meds and get a good night sleep...things will be better in the morning. Thats a good little boy...nighty night.

"All right. Link to a contemporaneous article or blog post concerning the issue that you trust and which counters my linked article in the particular fashion you desire."~Bryan

Does this sentence actually make sense to you?

I don't need other people's words when mine do just fine. I know you are making a false accusation about GWB because I was there. If you think that's partisan it just goes to show how crazy you are. You think 'truth' has a party.

Here ya go bryanD:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html

These statist commies always wanted to raise your taxes and tell you what you could do, man-made global warming was just the best justification they had at the moment. This was a leftwing theft from the get-go, and the American people would have been up-in-arms quite literally if the Dems had ever had the temerity to push through Gore/IPCC/Pachauri schemes. They have tried to make it seem pro-growth with their insane green jobs claims, but even union voters aren't that dumb. The problem for Dems on these things is they have already voted for it. Like someone said, these things are the kiss of death and they've already been kissed. I look forward to hearing msnbc talking heads spin how the GOP is "playing politics" or "smearing Democrats" when it holds up their own votes as an issue in the November elections.

Too many hysterical warmist comments so I must summarize. Bite me. Thank you for your kind compliance.

Do all scientists lie to us like climate scientists lie?

This is a classic scientific cluster-fuck. I've seen 'em before. No doubt I will see them again.

You can't do this kind of crap in science. Your data has to be reproducible. Hiding the data is the proverbial Big Red Flag that what you're doing is unethical.

In scientific research openness is the key to success (unless you're trying to patent something). If you publish a paper and two or three other laboratories fail to reproduce your results a retraction is in order (or you get ignored, which is worse).

Science is a good field. It's fed my family for years. I intend to keep on doing good science. These climate change charlatans that fudged their data give everyone in science a bad name. They should be put in the stocks at the very least!

And "Settled Science" is an oxymoron!

Charlie

And yet, our brilliant Precedent is preaching AGW (as a means to Socialism).

Please leave Charles and Sinclair to their coloring books.

The IPCC also uses a bogus formula for "radiative forcing" which is how they compute the greenhouse effect since they ignore radiative cooling of the earth. See Leave CO2 Alone!

Has anybody noticed that it's colder than a well-digger's @@s in Alaska?

Hoax and Chains.

How's that working out for ya?

Imagery of Apollo landing sites from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

@ bryanD:
Wow. Just... wow.

Idiot Steve said:

"The earth is only cooling temporarily while it waits for the sunspots to return and for the ocean oscillations to reverse themselves."

Why in hell is it inconceivable that the bit of warming in the 90s was the flip side of that cooling cycle. Ever see a sine wave? Hell, an ocean wave?

Funny that you true believers insist the cooling is temporary, superimposed over the [allegedly] CO2-driven warming trend, even though none of the climate models form the early 90s predicted it.

It's so often forgotten that computer models aren't the real thing. And that simply because you can measure something and track the variability of it for a few years doesn't mean you understand either the relevance of what you're looking at or what effects other things might have on what you're seeing.

Also - someone telling you there's no time to make any decision but THEY know what's best for everyone so you ought to abdicate your own evaluation and decision to what they propose is looking to steal you blind.

"Imagery of Apollo landing sites from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance..."
81. Posted by Kasmir

Kasmir, I linked to that page weeks ago. Because it proves my point. It's a NASA "Rick-roll", i.e. the "large image" link (below the squinty thumbs) leads to a generic fugazy image, and not to the image thumbnailed.

Try it! :-g