"richp" wrote in message
...


Refute what he posted or STFU

Ah, you mean:

quote
The average temperature has gone up two degrees in the last 50 years,
/quote

You really think that is supported even by the cooked numbers that been
mashed with computer code so many times that THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE the
original data anymore?

The data and methods they been using for the last 10 years are in such a
sorry state of disarray that even HONEST scientists (not like the ones at
the Climate Research Unit) can't even make heads or tails of the data now.

All, I repeat all of that work has to be re-done. The leaked emails also
show collusion and cooperation to suppress data and information that would
help the public make a better informed decision.

In fact, since the CRU received millions (well over 20 million), the issue
of fraud now also comes into play. That money needs to be given back to the
taxpayers, and we likely now will NEVER know how much this data been
tampered with.

In short:
The climate data is a bloody mess.

To try and claim in that email that the temperature gone up 2 degrees 50
years is laughable, but the CRU claims are actually worse then even the
silly claims being made by Harry in this thread...

Super Turtle

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:35:00 -0700, Green Turtle wrote:

"richp" wrote in message
...


Refute what he posted or STFU

Ah, you mean:

quote
The average temperature has gone up two degrees in the last 50 years,
/quote

You really think that is supported even by the cooked numbers that been
mashed with computer code so many times that THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE the
original data anymore?

Yes.

The data and methods they been using for the last 10 years are in such a
sorry state of disarray that even HONEST scientists (not like the ones
at the Climate Research Unit) can't even make heads or tails of the data
now.

Yet, by magic, you claim to know that the conclusions are wrong based on
no data at all?

All, I repeat all of that work has to be re-done. The leaked emails also
show collusion and cooperation to suppress data and information that
would help the public make a better informed decision.

Let us actually say what you mean: All that data needs to be replaced
with new data that is definitely bogus because there is no way to go back
in the "way back machine" and measure it again.

This is the _REAL_ intent. It is to rewrite history like fascist pigs
always do.

In fact, since the CRU received millions (well over 20 million), the
issue of fraud now also comes into play.

That is only the case to a religious rightarded nutter.

That money needs to be given
back to the taxpayers, and we likely now will NEVER know how much this
data been tampered with.

And if we will "never know" then what, exactly, will have been gained by
giving back the imaginary money never paid by any taxpayers?

In short:
The climate data is a bloody mess.

That may be true. And it may call for a non-biased cleanup.

To try and claim in that email that the temperature gone up 2 degrees 50
years is laughable, but the CRU claims are actually worse then even the
silly claims being made by Harry in this thread...

Why?????????????????? The people making the claims are certainly more
qualified to make the claims than are you and any of the others I see
posting here.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson