Not another Global Warming thread...

[Seabass Inna Bun]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Not at all, rather it was the fact that those who were selected to investigate (for instance in the East Anglia investigation), were biased to the position of CAGW, did not ask any questions concerning the main offenses of the emails, and was found to have Russell Muir (who was in charge of the investigation) going to Phil Jones (implicated) and seeking his direction on how to go about the investigation. It was shown to be nothing more than a political grandstanding.

Ha ha. "It was shown". Once again, I suspect that a bunch of right wingers were unhappy with the investigation because it didn't produce the desired results, so they claimed it didn't count.

Add in the investigations to Mann by Penn State which was an internal investigation with conflicting interests (ie Penn State gains a major amount of funding through Mann's department) to which they also did nothing more than accept a written claim from Mann that he did no wrong and again... we see it was nothing more than a political farce.

We? Who is "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket? You and the blogger who told you what to think? Once again, I'll side with the vast amount of peer-reviewed research against the right-wingers with a political bone to pick because Al Gore!

Considering Penn State was also involved in lying concerning the abuse case, accepting their shoddy investigation of Mann is.. well... naive or at the least self serving.

See above. Mann's findings contradict the right's worthless lies, so the right conducts a witch hunt.

Check your facts, the original investigation found them guilty of violating FOIA laws, but the statue of limitations was so short on it that it had expired by that time. The rest was not "crimes" exactly, rather it was extremely unethical conduct that showed them colluding to drive political points in the research and to pressure journals to keep non-supportive research of CAGW from being published. These are all facts, common knowledge and verifiable. though you would actually have to read the full reports and not summaries from political spin houses.

I love the way you substitute "Republicans claim" with "it was shown". I'll leave this to the experts in the field and ignore the claims of the science hating, conspiracy-happy American right wing.

This is common knowledge, they even admitted it. Heck, it even lead to an apology by them as well as major discussions in the climate science community to which led to restructuring of the IPCC. If you are this uninformed on the subject, you are wasting my time.

You're wasting your own time; I didn't ask you to talk to me.

But your moaning has to do with how scientists react to right-wing harassment. This has nothing to do with the quality of research. I see nothing about how new research has led to difference conclusions and a lot about how climatologists are mean and nasty and corrupt. Come see me when scientific research supports the claims people like you and Bachmann and Inhofe make.

This is old news, very old. Do some reading, I am not here to educate you.

I don't care why you're here. You're free to go if you like.

By the way, in order to make a compelling case you'd have to do more than smear Mann. You'll have to show (claim, but to you it's apparently all the same) that all the independent research that arrives at the same conclusions is also "shoddy", and that all the fact-checking of Mann's research is also suspect because of something Penn State did that you don't like. Don't know what Penn State would have to do with research conducted at any other institution, though.

You are playing the part of a political lackey passing through carrying talking points.

Garbage.

Sorry, your knowledge of the issues is far to shallow to even begin to discuss with you.

Then stop. I won't mind.

You aren't up to speed and are just passing off political spin.

I long since learned that bringing facts to these sorts of arguments serves no purpose because my opponents' opinions aren't based on facts. It's entertaining proving them wrong, but their minds don't change. The extreme right wants to pretend global warming isn't real for ideological reasons, but they can't support this claim. So they have to attack those who make the opposite claim. And when the claims are investigated and found to be worthless, well, that just makes the investigators part of the conspiracy. This is why there is no arguing with conspiracy theorists.

Carry on with the political spin!

I will! Thanks for your permission!

[Mac_Muz]

Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid

Sea ice doesn't cause water rise....


...However land ice does.
...Same way that land ice can take away the sea level (growth of glaciers)

...The thing with the arctic ice melting away is that if the arctic melts, Greenland melts.
...However, green land melting will take a long time, at least in human life time terms.

Yup I will buy that.... There is no meaningful sea level rise either a few milimeters is moot.

We get that much from just NYC dumping crap into the ocean on 100 barges each day. Talk about not green. Are you old enough to recall when the garbage men of NYC went on strike? In the first 3 days everything stopped the mayor was brought down to his knees in deep kimshee.

There is nothing green about NYC or anyone living in that swill. And all that crap ends up in the sea..... daily.

[Seabass Inna Bun]

Thought I'd just pop in and show why I know that Nomander person has no there there.

Investigation of climate scientist at Penn State complete — Penn State University

Sorry about you being wrong and all.