Anyone else left the cult of Climatology since the CRU emails were liberated a month ago?

http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

By: Bradley Fikes - December 21st, 2009

UPDATE: For whatever reason, Thanks to a link from Climate Depot, this post has drawn an outpouring
of commenters. Thanks for stopping by, and thank you, Climate Depot! And thank you for your
patience with the comment moderation. I check comments frequently, and will step up the pace to
keep the conversation going.

It's good to see science-minded people from outside climate science weigh in on this topic. The
climate science priesthood is at last getting that skeptical examination the unethical and
fraudulent Climategate gang has tried to avoid.

I've blogged a lot about Climategate and will do more. So please check back often.
--------------------

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this
paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate
scientists.

Boy, was I naive.

Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to thwart skeptics and even
outright fraud, I've been trying to correct the record of my earlier foolishness. In one of those
columns, I even wrote: "And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for global warming science
without the political spin."

In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of global warming activists,
concerned more with politics than with science.

My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming alarmists, while assuming
the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global warming movement can
also exploit their agenda for profit.

Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by top global warming
scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in their favor, and did so
shamelessly.

Yet still most media reports desperately minimize Climategate, saying that it doesn't taint the
massive research supporting global warming theory. To them I say, how do you know that? Have you
investigated how much of that research was published due to the manipulation of these unethical and
fraudulent scientists? Do you know how much research that goes against the global warming activist
claims was unfairly suppressed?

Until all this is known, it's not possible to say with any confidence how much of global warming
theory will remain after all the fraud and deceit has been removed. And until climate science is
cleaned up, it doesn't deserve the worship so many in the media unthinkingly give its tainted
practitioners.

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:13:25 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

Anyone else left the cult of Climatology since the CRU emails were liberated a month ago?

http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

By: Bradley Fikes - December 21st, 2009

UPDATE: For whatever reason, Thanks to a link from Climate Depot, this post has drawn an outpouring
of commenters. Thanks for stopping by, and thank you, Climate Depot! And thank you for your
patience with the comment moderation. I check comments frequently, and will step up the pace to
keep the conversation going.

It's good to see science-minded people from outside climate science weigh in on this topic. The
climate science priesthood is at last getting that skeptical examination the unethical and
fraudulent Climategate gang has tried to avoid.

I've blogged a lot about Climategate and will do more. So please check back often.
--------------------

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this
paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate
scientists.

Boy, was I naive.

Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to thwart skeptics and even
outright fraud, I've been trying to correct the record of my earlier foolishness. In one of those
columns, I even wrote: "And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for global warming science
without the political spin."

In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of global warming activists,
concerned more with politics than with science.

My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming alarmists, while assuming
the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global warming movement can
also exploit their agenda for profit.

Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by top global warming
scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in their favor, and did so
shamelessly.

Yet still most media reports desperately minimize Climategate, saying that it doesn't taint the
massive research supporting global warming theory. To them I say, how do you know that? Have you
investigated how much of that research was published due to the manipulation of these unethical and
fraudulent scientists? Do you know how much research that goes against the global warming activist
claims was unfairly suppressed?

Until all this is known, it's not possible to say with any confidence how much of global warming
theory will remain after all the fraud and deceit has been removed. And until climate science is
cleaned up, it doesn't deserve the worship so many in the media unthinkingly give its tainted
practitioners.


But Bradley, they were saving the planet!

On Dec 24, 7:23*am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:13:25 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:



Anyone else left the cult of Climatology since the CRU emails were liberated a month ago?

http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

By: Bradley Fikes - *December 21st, 2009

UPDATE: For whatever reason, Thanks to a link from Climate Depot, this post has drawn an outpouring
of commenters. Thanks for stopping by, and thank you, Climate Depot! And thank you for your
patience with the comment moderation. I check comments frequently, and will step up the pace to
keep the conversation going.

It's good to see science-minded people from outside climate science weigh in on this topic. The
climate science priesthood is at last getting that skeptical examination the unethical and
fraudulent Climategate gang has tried to avoid.

I've blogged a lot about Climategate and will do more. So please check back often.
--------------------

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this
paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate
scientists.

Boy, was I naive.

Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to thwart skeptics and even
outright fraud, I've been trying to correct the record of my earlier foolishness. In one of those
columns, I even wrote: "And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for global warming science
without the political spin."

In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of global warming activists,
concerned more with politics than with science.

My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming alarmists, while assuming
the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global warming movement can
also exploit their agenda for profit.

Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by top global warming
scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in their favor, and did so
shamelessly.

Yet still most media reports desperately minimize Climategate, saying that it doesn't taint the
massive research supporting global warming theory. To them I say, how do you know that? Have you
investigated how much of that research was published due to the manipulation of these unethical and
fraudulent scientists? Do you know how much research that goes against the global warming activist
claims was unfairly suppressed?

Until all this is known, it's not possible to say with any confidence how much of global warming
theory will remain after all the fraud and deceit has been removed. And until climate science is
cleaned up, it doesn't deserve the worship so many in the media unthinkingly give its tainted
practitioners.

* * * * But Bradley, they were saving the planet!

Alas, no. The planet is obviously going to hell on a handcart. Failure
of politicians to take evasive action is due to a campaign of dis-
information that has sucked in people like you, with your heads in the
sand.

One person, usually below 4-years-old, is dying every 2 to 3 seconds.
Soon it will be one a second, and it will eventually overtake the
birth-rate of 4 per second. This is only made possible because of
environmental destruction wrought by humans.

On Dec 24, 9:51*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
"I M @ good guy" wrote:



On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:13:25 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

Anyone else left the cult of Climatology since the CRU emails were liberated a month ago?

http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

By: Bradley Fikes - *December 21st, 2009

UPDATE: For whatever reason, Thanks to a link from Climate Depot, this post has drawn an outpouring
of commenters. Thanks for stopping by, and thank you, Climate Depot! And thank you for your
patience with the comment moderation. I check comments frequently, and will step up the pace to
keep the conversation going.

It's good to see science-minded people from outside climate science weigh in on this topic. The
climate science priesthood is at last getting that skeptical examination the unethical and
fraudulent Climategate gang has tried to avoid.

I've blogged a lot about Climategate and will do more. So please check back often.
--------------------

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this
paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate
scientists.

Boy, was I naive.

Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to thwart skeptics and even
outright fraud, I've been trying to correct the record of my earlier foolishness. In one of those
columns, I even wrote: "And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for global warming science
without the political spin."

In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of global warming activists,
concerned more with politics than with science.

My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming alarmists, while assuming
the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global warming movement can
also exploit their agenda for profit.

Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by top global warming
scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in their favor, and did so
shamelessly.

Yet still most media reports desperately minimize Climategate, saying that it doesn't taint the
massive research supporting global warming theory. To them I say, how do you know that? Have you
investigated how much of that research was published due to the manipulation of these unethical and
fraudulent scientists? Do you know how much research that goes against the global warming activist
claims was unfairly suppressed?

Until all this is known, it's not possible to say with any confidence how much of global warming
theory will remain after all the fraud and deceit has been removed. And until climate science is
cleaned up, it doesn't deserve the worship so many in the media unthinkingly give its tainted
practitioners.

* * * * But Bradley, they were saving the planet!

Yes, and they don't give up whatsoever after the tipping point
(how many are they now?)

Winston Churchill said the secret of success was encapsulated in seven
words. He said,"Never give up. Never, never give up"

There again, I sort of guess you Germans know all about the result of
Sir Winston's maxim. If it wasn't for him, imagine the National
Socialist mess you'd have been in right now.

In article
,
JohnM wrote:

On Dec 24, 7:23*am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:13:25 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:



Anyone else left the cult of Climatology since the CRU emails were
liberated a month ago?

http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

By: Bradley Fikes - *December 21st, 2009

UPDATE: For whatever reason, Thanks to a link from Climate Depot, this
post has drawn an outpouring
of commenters. Thanks for stopping by, and thank you, Climate Depot! And
thank you for your
patience with the comment moderation. I check comments frequently, and
will step up the pace to
keep the conversation going.

It's good to see science-minded people from outside climate science weigh
in on this topic. The
climate science priesthood is at last getting that skeptical examination
the unethical and
fraudulent Climategate gang has tried to avoid.

I've blogged a lot about Climategate and will do more. So please check
back often.
--------------------

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote
several columns for this
paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and
defending the climate
scientists.

Boy, was I naive.

Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to
thwart skeptics and even
outright fraud, I've been trying to correct the record of my earlier
foolishness. In one of those
columns, I even wrote: "And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for
global warming science
without the political spin."

In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of
global warming activists,
concerned more with politics than with science.

My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming
alarmists, while assuming
the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global
warming movement can
also exploit their agenda for profit.

Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by
top global warming
scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in
their favor, and did so
shamelessly.

Yet still most media reports desperately minimize Climategate, saying that
it doesn't taint the
massive research supporting global warming theory. To them I say, how do
you know that? Have you
investigated how much of that research was published due to the
manipulation of these unethical and
fraudulent scientists? Do you know how much research that goes against the
global warming activist
claims was unfairly suppressed?

Until all this is known, it's not possible to say with any confidence how
much of global warming
theory will remain after all the fraud and deceit has been removed. And
until climate science is
cleaned up, it doesn't deserve the worship so many in the media
unthinkingly give its tainted
practitioners.

* * * * But Bradley, they were saving the planet!

Alas, no. The planet is obviously going to hell on a handcart. Failure
of politicians to take evasive action is due to a campaign of dis-
information that has sucked in people like you, with your heads in the
sand.

One person, usually below 4-years-old, is dying every 2 to 3 seconds.
Soon it will be one a second, and it will eventually overtake the
birth-rate of 4 per second. This is only made possible because of
environmental destruction wrought by humans.

Cite?

Lying scientists from East Anglia don't count. And don't quote Al
"Millions of Degrees inside the Earth" Gore, either.

On Dec 24, 11:53*am, Skipper wrote:
In article
,



JohnM wrote:
On Dec 24, 7:23*am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:13:25 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

Anyone else left the cult of Climatology since the CRU emails were
liberated a month ago?

http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

By: Bradley Fikes - *December 21st, 2009

UPDATE: For whatever reason, Thanks to a link from Climate Depot, this
post has drawn an outpouring
of commenters. Thanks for stopping by, and thank you, Climate Depot! And
thank you for your
patience with the comment moderation. I check comments frequently, and
will step up the pace to
keep the conversation going.

It's good to see science-minded people from outside climate science weigh
in on this topic. The
climate science priesthood is at last getting that skeptical examination
the unethical and
fraudulent Climategate gang has tried to avoid.

I've blogged a lot about Climategate and will do more. So please check
back often.
--------------------

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote
several columns for this
paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and
defending the climate
scientists.

Boy, was I naive.

Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to
thwart skeptics and even
outright fraud, I've been trying to correct the record of my earlier
foolishness. In one of those
columns, I even wrote: "And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for
global warming science
without the political spin."

In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of
global warming activists,
concerned more with politics than with science.

My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming
alarmists, while assuming
the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global
warming movement can
also exploit their agenda for profit.

Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by
top global warming
scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in
their favor, and did so
shamelessly.

Yet still most media reports desperately minimize Climategate, saying that
it doesn't taint the
massive research supporting global warming theory. To them I say, how do
you know that? Have you
investigated how much of that research was published due to the
manipulation of these unethical and
fraudulent scientists? Do you know how much research that goes against the
global warming activist
claims was unfairly suppressed?

Until all this is known, it's not possible to say with any confidence how
much of global warming
theory will remain after all the fraud and deceit has been removed. And
until climate science is
cleaned up, it doesn't deserve the worship so many in the media
unthinkingly give its tainted
practitioners.

* * * * But Bradley, they were saving the planet!

Alas, no. The planet is obviously going to hell on a handcart. Failure
of politicians to take evasive action is due to a campaign of dis-
information that has sucked in people like you, with your heads in the
sand.

One person, usually below 4-years-old, is dying every 2 to 3 seconds.
Soon it will be one a second, and it will eventually overtake the
birth-rate of 4 per second. This is only made possible because of
environmental destruction wrought by humans.

Cite?

Lying scientists from East Anglia don't count. And don't quote Al
"Millions of Degrees inside the Earth" Gore, either.

WFP website

On Dec 24, 8:51*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
"I M @ good guy" wrote:



On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:13:25 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

Anyone else left the cult of Climatology since the CRU emails were liberated a month ago?

http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

By: Bradley Fikes - *December 21st, 2009

UPDATE: For whatever reason, Thanks to a link from Climate Depot, this post has drawn an outpouring
of commenters. Thanks for stopping by, and thank you, Climate Depot! And thank you for your
patience with the comment moderation. I check comments frequently, and will step up the pace to
keep the conversation going.

It's good to see science-minded people from outside climate science weigh in on this topic. The
climate science priesthood is at last getting that skeptical examination the unethical and
fraudulent Climategate gang has tried to avoid.

I've blogged a lot about Climategate and will do more. So please check back often.
--------------------

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this
paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate
scientists.

Boy, was I naive.

Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to thwart skeptics and even
outright fraud, I've been trying to correct the record of my earlier foolishness. In one of those
columns, I even wrote: "And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for global warming science
without the political spin."

In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of global warming activists,
concerned more with politics than with science.

My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming alarmists, while assuming
the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global warming movement can
also exploit their agenda for profit.

Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by top global warming
scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in their favor, and did so
shamelessly.

Yet still most media reports desperately minimize Climategate, saying that it doesn't taint the
massive research supporting global warming theory. To them I say, how do you know that? Have you
investigated how much of that research was published due to the manipulation of these unethical and
fraudulent scientists? Do you know how much research that goes against the global warming activist
claims was unfairly suppressed?

Until all this is known, it's not possible to say with any confidence how much of global warming
theory will remain after all the fraud and deceit has been removed. And until climate science is
cleaned up, it doesn't deserve the worship so many in the media unthinkingly give its tainted
practitioners.

* * * * But Bradley, they were saving the planet!

Yes, and they don't give up whatsoever after the tipping point
(how many are they now?)

Does the tipping point cause global cooling?I thought it
caused enhanced warming.

On 12/24/2009 5:27 PM, chemist wrote:
On Dec 24, 8:51 am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
"I M @ good guy" wrote:



On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:13:25 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

Anyone else left the cult of Climatology since the CRU emails were liberated a month ago?

http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

By: Bradley Fikes - December 21st, 2009

UPDATE: For whatever reason, Thanks to a link from Climate Depot, this post has drawn an outpouring
of commenters. Thanks for stopping by, and thank you, Climate Depot! And thank you for your
patience with the comment moderation. I check comments frequently, and will step up the pace to
keep the conversation going.

It's good to see science-minded people from outside climate science weigh in on this topic. The
climate science priesthood is at last getting that skeptical examination the unethical and
fraudulent Climategate gang has tried to avoid.

I've blogged a lot about Climategate and will do more. So please check back often.
--------------------

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this
paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate
scientists.

Boy, was I naive.

Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to thwart skeptics and even
outright fraud, I've been trying to correct the record of my earlier foolishness. In one of those
columns, I even wrote: "And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for global warming science
without the political spin."

In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of global warming activists,
concerned more with politics than with science.

My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming alarmists, while assuming
the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global warming movement can
also exploit their agenda for profit.

Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by top global warming
scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in their favor, and did so
shamelessly.

Yet still most media reports desperately minimize Climategate, saying that it doesn't taint the
massive research supporting global warming theory. To them I say, how do you know that? Have you
investigated how much of that research was published due to the manipulation of these unethical and
fraudulent scientists? Do you know how much research that goes against the global warming activist
claims was unfairly suppressed?

Until all this is known, it's not possible to say with any confidence how much of global warming
theory will remain after all the fraud and deceit has been removed. And until climate science is
cleaned up, it doesn't deserve the worship so many in the media unthinkingly give its tainted
practitioners.

But Bradley, they were saving the planet!

Yes, and they don't give up whatsoever after the tipping point
(how many are they now?)

Does the tipping point cause global cooling?I thought it
caused enhanced warming.
It causes tipping.....
--

"Poetic Justice" wrote in message
ster.com...
On 12/24/2009 5:27 PM, chemist wrote:
Does the tipping point cause global cooling?I thought it
caused enhanced warming.
It causes tipping.....

Does this result in better service?

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:16:01 -0500, Poetic Justice
wrote:

On 12/24/2009 5:27 PM, chemist wrote:
On Dec 24, 8:51 am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
"I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:13:25 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

Anyone else left the cult of Climatology since the CRU emails were liberated a month ago?

http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

By: Bradley Fikes - December 21st, 2009

UPDATE: For whatever reason, Thanks to a link from Climate Depot, this post has drawn an outpouring
of commenters. Thanks for stopping by, and thank you, Climate Depot! And thank you for your
patience with the comment moderation. I check comments frequently, and will step up the pace to
keep the conversation going.

It's good to see science-minded people from outside climate science weigh in on this topic. The
climate science priesthood is at last getting that skeptical examination the unethical and
fraudulent Climategate gang has tried to avoid.

I've blogged a lot about Climategate and will do more. So please check back often.
--------------------

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this
paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate
scientists.

Boy, was I naive.

Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to thwart skeptics and even
outright fraud, I've been trying to correct the record of my earlier foolishness. In one of those
columns, I even wrote: "And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for global warming science
without the political spin."

In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of global warming activists,
concerned more with politics than with science.

My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming alarmists, while assuming
the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global warming movement can
also exploit their agenda for profit.

Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by top global warming
scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in their favor, and did so
shamelessly.

Yet still most media reports desperately minimize Climategate, saying that it doesn't taint the
massive research supporting global warming theory. To them I say, how do you know that? Have you
investigated how much of that research was published due to the manipulation of these unethical and
fraudulent scientists? Do you know how much research that goes against the global warming activist
claims was unfairly suppressed?

Until all this is known, it's not possible to say with any confidence how much of global warming
theory will remain after all the fraud and deceit has been removed. And until climate science is
cleaned up, it doesn't deserve the worship so many in the media unthinkingly give its tainted
practitioners.

But Bradley, they were saving the planet!

Yes, and they don't give up whatsoever after the tipping point
(how many are they now?)

Does the tipping point cause global cooling?I thought it
caused enhanced warming.

It causes tipping.....


Is that what a liberal leftist thinks taxes are,
everybody but the leftist pays taxes willingly.

But warmer weather will reduce the carbon
taxes, win, win, win, let it get warm, please.