Previous  1  2  3  4

Well I'm not sure why you think I should prefer a partisan Democrat, but doesn't matter. We can deal with the substance.

First though on the partisan thing, you sent me to warmist sites to read people like Peter Gleik. You do know who he is don't you?

" You know him, he’s the guy from the Pacific Institute who posed as a board member for Heartland so he could steal documents. The plan was so badly conceived that it quickly unraveled, partly because of a ridiculous fake document that many say Gleick authored to get the media interested in the story of what he found. But, it was laughably transparent, and Gleick’s tendentious forgery was characterized by Megan McArdle of the Atlantic as reading “like it was written from the secret villain lair in a Batman comic. By an intern.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/03/p ... ck-genius/

So you're right on that one. I will point that sort of stuff out. Of course I will.

One reason is of the guys you sent me to Gleik is the only one who tried to actually baffle gab the reader into believing there was no climate pause - that the warming just continued on like it always has since man, or more precisely since non-Gleikian man has been exhaling heinous CO2 out into the universe, then emitting it from his evil industries.

Here's the problem with the Gleikian version though. He says the climate pause claim is false, because warming is still happening. The problem is he told you the claim he's outraged about from what he calls the deniers involves "statistically significant" warming.

If he were to say to you "when you use the right data set you can show trace warming that is not statistically significant" that would be correct, but it would not be warming in the sense he's insinuating.

Even if you did use the heavily massaged data of Hansen's GISS you still would not get "statistically significant" warming. What that means in reference to what scientists actually said regarding the climate pause is there has been no statistically significant warming in about 17 years. That means if you have a kid who graduated this year he or she has never actually experienced this warming of which you speak. That's why you guys are having all these problems scaring the youth now, even though you put so much into it.

OK on the other stuff I could go through it piece by piece, but basically it doesn't say what you think it says. Or at least it doesn't say what you were originally claiming.

It doesn't speak of hidden warming beyond what we get from the accepted data sets. It admits to the climate pause and offers excuses for it's existence within the parameters of their warming hypothesis. At least that's their hope, but what I hear is them finally admitting natural feedbacks matter more than they were previously admitting to.

   

As expected

And none of my links are to "warmist sites"

   

Your links did not say what you claimed they would say. There is no raw data for supposedly hidden warming. There are hypotheses and although you did not offer it, I'll tell you, there are some massaged questionable data using what I'll call magic math techniques.

Peter Gleick is not just an activist, he's a criminal. Forbes is not a warmist site, but their connection with Gleick back when they had one made it questionable. I admit though, they redeemed themselves by allowing independent writers to expose him on their pages after he revealed himself as a crook by indulging his criminal urges to steal and commit fraud.

Peter Gleick Admits to Stealing Heartland Documents

Peter Gleick Sets Back the Climate Debate

   

Are you a fucking idiot? You do know about that Forbes (whose official motto is "The Capitalist Tool") is owned by the Republican Forbes family and that it's editor in Chief and CEO is uber-Replubcian strategist and former failed Presidential candidate Steve Forbes?

And I don't care about how he got a hold of your beloved right-wing Heartland Institute's Climate Change propaganda strategy. Notice none of you links talk about what the 'stolen' documents actually were.

   

No, that insult would fit somebody like yourself who obviously can't read. I tell you Forbes is not a warmist site, then you manifest outrageous outrage, because Forbes is not a warmist site. Do you even listen to yourself?

Although...back when Forbes had a relationship with the warmist criminal, Peter Gleick that connection was questionable. I guess they wanted to show they were willing to listen to both sides, or something.

And do you seriously want to get into the nitty gritty of what Gleick did? He didn't just steal the documents, he altered and added to what was in there, claiming they were the original, all while trying to hide his identity. And yeah, I can show you what was in the documents if you like. Do you seriously want to roll around in Peter Gleick's filth though? I'll take you by the hand and show you where it is if you want to dive in, but seriously, if that's what you want, all you're going to do is prove beyond a doubt who the real "fucking idiot" is. Hint: It isn't me.

   

You said Forbes's connection to warmists made them a "questionable" source.


I know that Hearland's allegations of forgery are far from statements of fact and remain unsupported. But you're right - I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of ONE LINK from the several I posted.

   

No, I said in spite of not being conventionally warmist Forbe's connection to Gleick, back when they had one, was questionable.





Not just forgery - theft and fraud - and they're more than allegations. Look into it. Gleick admits his guilt. And if you don't want to get into it, stop whining like it matters.

   

He did not admit to theft or fraud and those remain unproven allegations.

   

I always get a laugh out of you guys when I have to take you by the hand to introduce you to the facts, then all of a sudden you're the expert on the matter.

What Gleick admitted to specifically was...



Although I have to admit that is a biased source. It's Peter Gleick at the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-g ... 89669.html

   

Here's one from another admittedly biased source - Andrew Revkin of the New York Times.

Peter Gleick admits to deception in obtaining Heartland Climate Files

   

And I gave you two from your side so here's one from mine.

First though, there's no argument that Gleick stole acquired the documents illegitimately from Heartland. Gleick will not admit to a false addition to the documents. Whoever did that is out there with "the real killer". Maybe some day OJ will get em both.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/gleik- ... pologizes/

   

And yet while he admits to duping Heartland into sending him doucments, he neither admits to committing theft or fraud, and wasn't charged with either. The forgery complaints, allong with allegations of criminiality are simply Heartland's unfounded allegations.

Thank god, because if he does get charged, it prooves Climate Change is a lie!

...Right?

   

No, but it does reveal him as at least partisan - something you "denied" earlier - also a liar, and I say a thief, and if I had the time to educate you, you would see he is also a forger. Basically referencing that guy for support is a joke. It's like the guy from the New York Times said. Gleick discredits anything he supports, and from here on out makes any position he supports the liar's position.

So here's the thing, Gleick was the only guy you could find who would try top suggest there was warming during the 17 year climate pause we've been going through, and even that admitted crook couldn't dare to pretend there was statistically significant warming.

Here's another thing. You would be surprised to learn how much of your supposed "consensus" is made up of crooks like Gleick. Someday when I have the time I'm going to do a thread on the crooked history of Warmism. This'll be you.

This'll be me.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4