Sometimes I think the treehuggers do more harm than good.
Wikipedia is your refutation? And a hit on Inhofe for taking "money from energy corporations?"For anyone interested in getting better informed about how the Far-Right is desperately trying to spin a non-story...
Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For anyone really interested in the facts of the criminal case--here they are:
Go Jim Inhofe, keep shilling for energy corps. Your kids must be so proud...
Wikipedia is your refutation? And a hit on Inhofe for taking "money from energy corporations?"
I guess you also protest Algore pushing AGW and oh.. also being poised to make hundreds of millions off the regulations of Cap and Trade and the like. After all, isn't that what your upset about with Inhofe? That he stands to "gain" from his position monetarily?
al gore gains from cap and trade financially? link?
Cap-and-trade bill: Blood and Gore | Paul Mulshine - NJ.comNo, I'm not talking about a horror movie, but there is a link to the cinema. Around the time Al Gore was putting together that movie about the horrors of global warming titled "An Inconvenient Truth," he was also putting together a firm with a former Goldman-Sachs executive named David Blood. The firm, Generation Investment Management, recently bought a share of a company called Camco International Ltd., which trades in carbon credits.
So if the U.S. Senate passes that cap-and-trade bill and President Obama signs it, Blood and Gore stand to make out just fine on their investments. The market in carbon credits is a very lucrative one.
And guess what? You won't find conservative groups fighting you about better gas mileage and recycling as long as it doesn't unnecessarily harm people economically. Managing the cutting of tree, sensibly, is okay. Allowing forest fires because you don't want thinning of forests or cutting fire breaks, is irresponsible.first, let me say that any scientist who has purposely misrepresented data should not be allowed to continue.
now, let me say that it's patently untrue that environmental groups do nothing. recycling is sensible, greater mpg is sensible, and overall reduction of energy consumption is sensible, reasonable and logical. these were the first approaches taken by those groups.
let me ask you a question: why would you want to see the demise of groups who could come up with, sensible, logical and reasonable plans?
Yeah, any wonder?i guess it's like cheney and halliburton benefitting off of the iraq lie/war.
except global warming is not a lie according to the vast majority of climate scientists.
only 5% of climate scientists agree with inhofe.
I read your Penn State article that was taken from the Penn State student newspaper (not researched by US News & World Report by the way). I am not really sure how this line
indicates that the theory of global warming is definitely proven to be wrong.
Or this one:
Couldn't someone say that you are kinda exaggerating a little yourself at this point? I'd rather someone independent have made these comments.
Having "climate change opponents" make claims that two researchers falsified info really doesn't tell me much. Little more details before we jump to conclusions, thus looking as guilty as the ones you accuse of being wrong.
But I can give another chance to prove it. The Breibart article mentions e-mail between "leading US researchers" of global climate change. Do me a favor and list these people so we'll recognize their names when they get investigated, OK?
Considering the trillions of dollars at stake, AGW needs a lot more research before it's validity can be on a par with the theory of relativity. The perpetrators of the falsified data should be prosecuted for fraud. Their grants depended on governments believing in AGW, and by premeditated lying, their crime is no different than Bernie Madoff's.
The thousands of emails, computer code, and temperature data released from CRU don't "prove" that global warming is wrong. What they do is show that the leading scientists promoting AGW have falsified data, hidden data from other scientists wishing to replicate their claims, conspired to ignore FOI requests, destroyed the peer review process, kept papers and findings critical of AGW out of scientific journals, and vowed to each other that information critical of AGW would not be included in IPCC reports.
and your source of this is?
Many independent people have commented on it. Where have you been??
Not in the articles you have posted. They are quoting the anti-warming people as the source. Circular logic, I think they call that.
A. It's far more than two scientists.
B. Read the emails and data yourself.
You've already mentioned the main one yourself, Michael Mann.
Others include Gavin Schmidt at NASA, Kevin Trenbeth and Colorado State, Tom Wigley of UCAR, Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore, etc. Should I go on or is this enough for now???
Gill reading or not reading all the emails has no effect on the validity of the charges against the scientists. But good luck with that.Why aren't any of these people mentioned in the articles you have posted? I'm sure you have read all of the e-mails yourself since you made the initial claim, right?
i guess it's like cheney and halliburton benefitting off of the iraq lie/war.
except global warming is not a lie according to the vast majority of climate scientists.
recycling is sensible,
greater mpg is sensible,
and overall reduction of energy consumption is sensible,
reasonable and logical.
these were the first approaches taken by those groups.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?