On 17 May, 07:41, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
"Giga2" wrote in message

...
On 16 May, 07:51, "Rob Dekker" wrote:



"Giga2" wrote in message

On 14 May, 22:31, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
This is the third ClimateGate article by the Spiegel.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...694484,00.html

The Climategate Chronicle
How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised
By Axel Bojanowski

.....
SPIEGEL ONLINE reveals how the war between climate researchers and
climate skeptics broke out, the
tricks the two sides used to outmaneuver each other and how the
conflict
could be resolved.

[rest at URL]

Excellent piece of writing and research again from Spiegel. Slightly
AGW biased but hey! Seems to lack the obvious conclusion though as
well. If the science has been so corrupted then it cannot be trusted.

I read the whole article and there is no mentioning of the science being
"corrupted".
Did I miss something ?

You yourself mentioned how the politics was corrupted.

I don't recall stating that. Maybe you can quote the section I wrote that
led you to believe that I mentioned that.


You're right, I got you mixed up with Roving Rabbit?


This article
outlines how political activism has infiltrated the scientific
process, bringing the political corruption with it, into the science.

Politics are often a matter of opinion, and it seems that you call that
"political corruption" (even though I did not use these words). I tend to
think of it as a difference of opinion.


Yes, and really 'opinion' is the thing that corrupts science. Adovcacy
rather than investigation.


I DID state (reflecting SPIEGEL as clear as I could) that climate scientists
have been under "relentless attacks on science from non-scientific
fossil-fuel funded organisations and a few skeptic scientists". And that
this made scientists "cave in" to their position. SPIEGEL actually describes
this very well.

But I want to re-state that the science itself is fine. Even the SPIEGEL
does not at all dispute that.
To claim that "science has been so corrupted" is a completely incorrect
statement.

Rather than stating "science has been corrupted" it's better to state that
"science has been compromised" (just like SPIEGEL stated) by fossil-fuel
funded organisations who want nothing but create confusion and delay in the
process towards understanding how we humans change the climate of our own
planet.

*Rob

Really so all the 'corruption' is on one side of the debate. How
convenient.

On May 17, 11:28*am, Giga2 wrote:
On 17 May, 07:41, "Rob Dekker" wrote:





"Giga2" wrote in message

....
On 16 May, 07:51, "Rob Dekker" wrote:

"Giga2" wrote in message

On 14 May, 22:31, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
This is the third ClimateGate article by the Spiegel.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...694484,00.html

The Climategate Chronicle
How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised
By Axel Bojanowski

.....
SPIEGEL ONLINE reveals how the war between climate researchers and
climate skeptics broke out, the
tricks the two sides used to outmaneuver each other and how the
conflict
could be resolved.

[rest at URL]

Excellent piece of writing and research again from Spiegel. Slightly
AGW biased but hey! Seems to lack the obvious conclusion though as
well. If the science has been so corrupted then it cannot be trusted.

I read the whole article and there is no mentioning of the science being
"corrupted".
Did I miss something ?

You yourself mentioned how the politics was corrupted.

I don't recall stating that. Maybe you can quote the section I wrote that
led you to believe that I mentioned that.

You're right, I got you mixed up with Roving Rabbit?



This article
outlines how political activism has infiltrated the scientific
process, bringing the political corruption with it, into the science.

Politics are often a matter of opinion, and it seems that you call that
"political corruption" (even though I did not use these words). I tend to
think of it as a difference of opinion.

Yes, and really 'opinion' is the thing that corrupts science. Adovcacy
rather than investigation.







I DID state (reflecting SPIEGEL as clear as I could) that climate scientists
have been under "relentless attacks on science from non-scientific
fossil-fuel funded organisations and a few skeptic scientists". And that
this made scientists "cave in" to their position. SPIEGEL actually describes
this very well.

But I want to re-state that the science itself is fine. Even the SPIEGEL
does not at all dispute that.
To claim that "science has been so corrupted" is a completely incorrect
statement.

Rather than stating "science has been corrupted" it's better to state that
"science has been compromised" (just like SPIEGEL stated) by fossil-fuel
funded organisations who want nothing but create confusion and delay in the
process towards understanding how we humans change the climate of our own
planet.

*Rob

Really so all the 'corruption' is on one side of the debate. How
convenient.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From someone who lies so regularly and cherry picks data so obviously
giga, that is, I'm afraid, rich.

On Sun, 16 May 2010 19:18:37 -0700, Michael Price wrote:

On May 17, 1:35Â*am, Michael Coburn wrote:
[quoted text muted]

And this is what the warmists are reduced to "Why do something if
there's a risk?".
You already know why if you're anywhere near knowledgable enough to
comment.
Logically any cheaper source that did not have this risk would have
already replaced oil.

You are unwilling/unable to understand that the owners of carbon are not
about to let go of their big fat lollipop while they can manage to get
dolts like Libertarians to protect them.

Since none has we can assume there is no cheaper feul and any substitute
would be
more expensive.

That is exactly the "assumption" made by all stilt brained Libertarians
who's vision stops at about 90 feet or 90 days.

Why should we impoverish the world, which we KNOW will
kill thousands
of Africans and others, on a account of a risk that seems less likely
all the time.

We don't _know_ how many climate change will kill, liar. We also don't
_know_ how many will die from limiting CO2 emissions. But there is a
strong likelihood that many will die from global warming.

[quoted text muted]

No it couldn't, the Gulf of Mexico doesn't support tens of millions
of people.

The people dislocated by Libertartia breaking out in the Gulf will
dramatically increase unemployment in the USA.

Remaining delusional pig crap deleted


--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60

On May 18, 4:14*am, Michael Coburn wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2010 19:18:37 -0700, Michael Price wrote:
On May 17, 1:35*am, Michael Coburn wrote:
[quoted text muted]

* And this is what the warmists are reduced to "Why do something if
there's a risk?". You already know why if you're anywhere near
knowledgeable enough to comment. Logically any cheaper source
that did not have this risk would have already replaced oil.

You are unwilling/unable to understand that the owners of carbon are not
about to let go of their big fat lollipop while they can manage to get
dolts like Libertarians to protect them.

If you want to insult libertarian's intelligence maybe you should try
refuting their
arguments. I understand that people invested in carbon technologies
aren't
just going to abandon their investment. This however is irrelevant to
my
point which you are either too stupid to understand or too dishonest
to admit
is valid.

Since none has we can assume there is no cheaper feul and any substitute
would be more expensive.

That is exactly the "assumption" made by all stilt brained Libertarians
who's vision stops at about 90 feet or 90 days.

No it's the assumption made by anyone competent in economics. If
there's a cheaper
way to provide power then why isn't it being used?

Why should we impoverish the world, which we KNOW will
kill thousands of Africans and others, on a account of a risk that seems less likely
all the time.

We don't _know_ how many climate change will kill, liar.

I didn't say we did, in fact my argument was that the number is
uncertain and could be
zero. I did not claim to know what you claim I claimed to know, you
are therefore the
liar not me.

*We also don't _know_ how many will die from limiting CO2 emissions.

We know that it will cost at least tens of billions of dollars much
of it from the third
world. That will kill thousands, at least. We know

*But there is a strong likelihood that many will die from global warming.

The likelihood, if it was ever strong, is getting weaker all the
time.

[quoted text muted]

* No it couldn't, the Gulf of Mexico doesn't support tens of millions
of people.

The people dislocated by Libertartia breaking out in the Gulf will
dramatically increase unemployment in the USA.

You made a claim that "We do not yet know the impact of the gulf
gusher.
But it could be on a scale of the "Dust Bowl" that prolonged the Great
Depression.".
There is no evidence that this is remotely possible. There is no way
that people
could be disadvantaged by the spill on anywhere near the scale of the
Dust Bowl.
And of course there is zero evidence of libertarianism breaking out in
the Gulf, the
companies in question were both regulated and protected by the
government, but
keep up the lie.

*Remaining delusional pig crap deleted

--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60

On Mon, 17 May 2010 18:34:46 -0700, Michael Price wrote:

On May 18, 4:14Â*am, Michael Coburn wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2010 19:18:37 -0700, Michael Price wrote:
On May 17, 1:35Â*am, Michael Coburn wrote:
[quoted text muted]

Â* And this is what the warmists are reduced to "Why do something if
there's a risk?". You already know why if you're anywhere near
knowledgeable enough to comment. Logically any cheaper source that
did not have this risk would have already replaced oil.

You are unwilling/unable to understand that the owners of carbon are
not about to let go of their big fat lollipop while they can manage to
get dolts like Libertarians to protect them.

If you want to insult libertarian's intelligence maybe you should try
refuting their arguments.

They don't seem to have any that are valid in this case.


I understand that people invested in carbon technologies
aren't just going to abandon their investment. This is however
irrelevant to my
point which you are either too stupid to understand or too dishonest to
admit
is valid.

You have made no valid point. While the owners of _real_ capital
surrounding carbon fuels are not pleased with a shortened income stream
from their investments, I was referring to the owners of the fossil fuel
itself. The solution to this problem is the development of
alternatives. And the owners of carbon will do everything in their power
to stop such progress.

Since none has we can assume there is no cheaper feul and any
substitute would be more expensive.

That is exactly the "assumption" made by all stilt brained Libertarians
who's vision stops at about 90 feet or 90 days.

No it's the assumption made by anyone competent in economics. If
there's a cheaper
way to provide power then why isn't it being used?

Because the "cheapness" of fossil fuels is a con. There are MASSIVE
subsidies to fossil fuels in ignoring the pollutants and in paying for
imperialism. The people do not see these expenses at the pump.

Why should we impoverish the world, which we KNOW will kill thousands
of Africans and others, on a account of a risk that seems less likely
all the time.

We don't _know_ how many climate change will kill, liar.

I didn't say we did, in fact my argument was that the number is
uncertain and could be
zero. I did not claim to know what you claim I claimed to know, you are
therefore the
liar not me.

(snore)

Â*We also don't _know_ how many will die from limiting CO2 emissions.

We know that it will cost at least tens of billions of dollars much
of it from the third
world. That will kill thousands, at least. We know

Nope. "WE" do not know that limiting CO2 "will kill thousands". You are
making **** up.

Â*But there is a strong likelihood that many will die from global
Â*warming.

The likelihood, if it was ever strong, is getting weaker all the
time.

Only the politics are being impacted. The facts aren't.

[quoted text muted]

Â* No it couldn't, the Gulf of Mexico doesn't support tens of
Â* millions
of people.

The people dislocated by Libertartia breaking out in the Gulf will
dramatically increase unemployment in the USA.

You made a claim that "We do not yet know the impact of the gulf
gusher.
But it could be on a scale of the "Dust Bowl" that prolonged the Great
Depression.".
There is no evidence that this is remotely possible. There is no way
that people
could be disadvantaged by the spill on anywhere near the scale of the
Dust Bowl.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Next contestant please.

And of course there is zero evidence of libertarianism breaking out in
the Gulf, the
companies in question were both regulated and protected by the
government, but
keep up the lie.

Any time a Libertarian is in trouble he crawls inside that little box
that says as long as there is any government at all then Libertarian crap
is excused for its failures. This spill and the financial bubble were in
fact caused by government negligence. Government did not regulate
strongly enough.

Â*Remaining delusional pig crap deleted

--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution"
--http://GreaterVoice.org/60





--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60

Michael Price wrote in news:ecbb7a51-e223-4aff-
:

The people dislocated by Libertartia breaking out in the Gulf will
dramatically increase unemployment in the USA.

You made a claim that "We do not yet know the impact of the gulf
gusher.
But it could be on a scale of the "Dust Bowl" that prolonged the Great
Depression.".
There is no evidence that this is remotely possible. There is no way
that people
could be disadvantaged by the spill on anywhere near the scale of the
Dust Bowl.
And of course there is zero evidence of libertarianism breaking out in
the Gulf, the
companies in question were both regulated and protected by the
government, but
keep up the lie.


Isn't it fun to watch the greenies harping on hated corporations that
light and heat their homes, power their SUVs and their lives while
they're jetting around on BP's kerosene to their next greenie protest?

The Gulf oil spill isn't going to end life on the planet as we know it.

If you boys want to worry over something, worry over this!

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...ano-ash-cloud-
When-will-Eyjafjallajoekull-eruption-stop

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...as-spewed-250-
million-cubic-metres-of-ash-1975747.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...os-scientis_n_
507772.html

Don't hear the greenies bitching about 8.8 billion tons of crap spewing
from it, do we? No, no....it's not a HUMAN-CAUSED event that fits our
POLITICAL AGENDA!.....no matter how much it spews even into a new ice
age.

--
Creationism is to science what storks are to obstetrics.

Larry

On 17 May, 13:19, Dawlish wrote:
On May 17, 11:28*am, Giga2 wrote:



On 17 May, 07:41, "Rob Dekker" wrote:

"Giga2" wrote in message

....
On 16 May, 07:51, "Rob Dekker" wrote:

"Giga2" wrote in message

On 14 May, 22:31, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
This is the third ClimateGate article by the Spiegel.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...694484,00.html

The Climategate Chronicle
How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised
By Axel Bojanowski

.....
SPIEGEL ONLINE reveals how the war between climate researchers and
climate skeptics broke out, the
tricks the two sides used to outmaneuver each other and how the
conflict
could be resolved.

[rest at URL]

Excellent piece of writing and research again from Spiegel. Slightly
AGW biased but hey! Seems to lack the obvious conclusion though as
well. If the science has been so corrupted then it cannot be trusted.

I read the whole article and there is no mentioning of the science being
"corrupted".
Did I miss something ?

You yourself mentioned how the politics was corrupted.

I don't recall stating that. Maybe you can quote the section I wrote that
led you to believe that I mentioned that.

You're right, I got you mixed up with Roving Rabbit?

This article
outlines how political activism has infiltrated the scientific
process, bringing the political corruption with it, into the science.

Politics are often a matter of opinion, and it seems that you call that
"political corruption" (even though I did not use these words). I tend to
think of it as a difference of opinion.

Yes, and really 'opinion' is the thing that corrupts science. Adovcacy
rather than investigation.

I DID state (reflecting SPIEGEL as clear as I could) that climate scientists
have been under "relentless attacks on science from non-scientific
fossil-fuel funded organisations and a few skeptic scientists". And that
this made scientists "cave in" to their position. SPIEGEL actually describes
this very well.

But I want to re-state that the science itself is fine. Even the SPIEGEL
does not at all dispute that.
To claim that "science has been so corrupted" is a completely incorrect
statement.

Rather than stating "science has been corrupted" it's better to state that
"science has been compromised" (just like SPIEGEL stated) by fossil-fuel
funded organisations who want nothing but create confusion and delay in the
process towards understanding how we humans change the climate of our own
planet.

*Rob

Really so all the 'corruption' is on one side of the debate. How
convenient.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From someone who lies so regularly and cherry picks data so obviously
giga, that is, I'm afraid, rich.

Please cite just one instance where I lied. I do not appreciate such
accusations, which amounts to slander by the way, and is completely
without foundation.

On May 18, 9:57*am, Giga2 wrote:
On 17 May, 13:19, Dawlish wrote:





On May 17, 11:28*am, Giga2 wrote:

On 17 May, 07:41, "Rob Dekker" wrote:

"Giga2" wrote in message

...
On 16 May, 07:51, "Rob Dekker" wrote:

"Giga2" wrote in message

On 14 May, 22:31, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
This is the third ClimateGate article by the Spiegel.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...694484,00.html

The Climategate Chronicle
How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised
By Axel Bojanowski

.....
SPIEGEL ONLINE reveals how the war between climate researchers and
climate skeptics broke out, the
tricks the two sides used to outmaneuver each other and how the
conflict
could be resolved.

[rest at URL]

Excellent piece of writing and research again from Spiegel. Slightly
AGW biased but hey! Seems to lack the obvious conclusion though as
well. If the science has been so corrupted then it cannot be trusted.

I read the whole article and there is no mentioning of the science being
"corrupted".
Did I miss something ?

You yourself mentioned how the politics was corrupted.

I don't recall stating that. Maybe you can quote the section I wrote that
led you to believe that I mentioned that.

You're right, I got you mixed up with Roving Rabbit?

This article
outlines how political activism has infiltrated the scientific
process, bringing the political corruption with it, into the science.

Politics are often a matter of opinion, and it seems that you call that
"political corruption" (even though I did not use these words). I tend to
think of it as a difference of opinion.

Yes, and really 'opinion' is the thing that corrupts science. Adovcacy
rather than investigation.

I DID state (reflecting SPIEGEL as clear as I could) that climate scientists
have been under "relentless attacks on science from non-scientific
fossil-fuel funded organisations and a few skeptic scientists". And that
this made scientists "cave in" to their position. SPIEGEL actually describes
this very well.

But I want to re-state that the science itself is fine. Even the SPIEGEL
does not at all dispute that.
To claim that "science has been so corrupted" is a completely incorrect
statement.

Rather than stating "science has been corrupted" it's better to state that
"science has been compromised" (just like SPIEGEL stated) by fossil-fuel
funded organisations who want nothing but create confusion and delay in the
process towards understanding how we humans change the climate of our own
planet.

*Rob

Really so all the 'corruption' is on one side of the debate. How
convenient.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From someone who lies so regularly and cherry picks data so obviously
giga, that is, I'm afraid, rich.

Please cite just one instance where I lied. I do not appreciate such
accusations, which amounts to slander by the way, and is completely
without foundation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nope, I'm sure you don't, so stop lying about what Phil Jones said.

"There has been no warming since 1995". There's the foundation.
Crystal clear. That's a lie and guess what that makes you?

It's very easy to stop being picked up each time you lie about this,
try changing what you say, so you don't lie.

On Tue, 18 May 2010 01:57:41 -0700, Giga2 wrote:

On 17 May, 13:19, Dawlish wrote:
On May 17, 11:28Â*am, Giga2 wrote:



On 17 May, 07:41, "Rob Dekker" wrote:

"Giga2" wrote in message


...
On 16 May, 07:51, "Rob Dekker" wrote:

"Giga2" wrote in message

On 14 May, 22:31, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
This is the third ClimateGate article by the Spiegel.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/
world/0,1518,694484,00.html

The Climategate Chronicle
How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised By Axel
Bojanowski

.....
SPIEGEL ONLINE reveals how the war between climate
researchers and climate skeptics broke out, the
tricks the two sides used to outmaneuver each other and how
the conflict
could be resolved.

[rest at URL]

Excellent piece of writing and research again from Spiegel.
Slightly AGW biased but hey! Seems to lack the obvious
conclusion though as well. If the science has been so
corrupted then it cannot be trusted.

I read the whole article and there is no mentioning of the
science being "corrupted".
Did I miss something ?

You yourself mentioned how the politics was corrupted.

I don't recall stating that. Maybe you can quote the section I
wrote that led you to believe that I mentioned that.

You're right, I got you mixed up with Roving Rabbit?

This article
outlines how political activism has infiltrated the scientific
process, bringing the political corruption with it, into the
science.

Politics are often a matter of opinion, and it seems that you call
that "political corruption" (even though I did not use these
words). I tend to think of it as a difference of opinion.

Yes, and really 'opinion' is the thing that corrupts science.
Adovcacy rather than investigation.

I DID state (reflecting SPIEGEL as clear as I could) that climate
scientists have been under "relentless attacks on science from
non-scientific fossil-fuel funded organisations and a few skeptic
scientists". And that this made scientists "cave in" to their
position. SPIEGEL actually describes this very well.

But I want to re-state that the science itself is fine. Even the
SPIEGEL does not at all dispute that.
To claim that "science has been so corrupted" is a completely
incorrect statement.

Rather than stating "science has been corrupted" it's better to
state that "science has been compromised" (just like SPIEGEL
stated) by fossil-fuel funded organisations who want nothing but
create confusion and delay in the process towards understanding how
we humans change the climate of our own planet.

Â*Rob

Really so all the 'corruption' is on one side of the debate. How
convenient.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From someone who lies so regularly and cherry picks data so obviously
giga, that is, I'm afraid, rich.

Please cite just one instance where I lied. I do not appreciate such
accusations, which amounts to slander by the way, and is completely
without foundation.

Dawlish is trying one of the Alinsky tactics. They're desperate - that's
all they have left. Just consider the source and laugh it off.

On 18 May, 10:36, Dawlish wrote:
On May 18, 9:57*am, Giga2 wrote:



On 17 May, 13:19, Dawlish wrote:

On May 17, 11:28*am, Giga2 wrote:

On 17 May, 07:41, "Rob Dekker" wrote:

"Giga2" wrote in message

...
On 16 May, 07:51, "Rob Dekker" wrote:

"Giga2" wrote in message

On 14 May, 22:31, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
This is the third ClimateGate article by the Spiegel.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...694484,00.html

The Climategate Chronicle
How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised
By Axel Bojanowski

.....
SPIEGEL ONLINE reveals how the war between climate researchers and
climate skeptics broke out, the
tricks the two sides used to outmaneuver each other and how the
conflict
could be resolved.

[rest at URL]

Excellent piece of writing and research again from Spiegel. Slightly
AGW biased but hey! Seems to lack the obvious conclusion though as
well. If the science has been so corrupted then it cannot be trusted.

I read the whole article and there is no mentioning of the science being
"corrupted".
Did I miss something ?

You yourself mentioned how the politics was corrupted.

I don't recall stating that. Maybe you can quote the section I wrote that
led you to believe that I mentioned that.

You're right, I got you mixed up with Roving Rabbit?

This article
outlines how political activism has infiltrated the scientific
process, bringing the political corruption with it, into the science.

Politics are often a matter of opinion, and it seems that you call that
"political corruption" (even though I did not use these words). I tend to
think of it as a difference of opinion.

Yes, and really 'opinion' is the thing that corrupts science. Adovcacy
rather than investigation.

I DID state (reflecting SPIEGEL as clear as I could) that climate scientists
have been under "relentless attacks on science from non-scientific
fossil-fuel funded organisations and a few skeptic scientists". And that
this made scientists "cave in" to their position. SPIEGEL actually describes
this very well.

But I want to re-state that the science itself is fine. Even the SPIEGEL
does not at all dispute that.
To claim that "science has been so corrupted" is a completely incorrect
statement.

Rather than stating "science has been corrupted" it's better to state that
"science has been compromised" (just like SPIEGEL stated) by fossil-fuel
funded organisations who want nothing but create confusion and delay in the
process towards understanding how we humans change the climate of our own
planet.

*Rob

Really so all the 'corruption' is on one side of the debate. How
convenient.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From someone who lies so regularly and cherry picks data so obviously
giga, that is, I'm afraid, rich.

Please cite just one instance where I lied. I do not appreciate such
accusations, which amounts to slander by the way, and is completely
without foundation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nope, I'm sure you don't, so stop lying about what Phil Jones said.

Lack of citation noted.


"There has been no warming since 1995". There's the foundation.
Crystal clear. That's a lie and guess what that makes you?

Is that a quote from me? If so how do you know it is a lie? There may
have been no warming since 1995-2009. Indeed there may have been
slight cooling.


It's very easy to stop being picked up each time you lie about this,
try changing what you say, so you don't lie.

I'm am always careful to add '~' or something, I don't see why I
should be over complicated about it. And again I have had enough of
discussing this distraction, so don't expect me to reply if you bring
it up again, except by the word '*CITE*'