It is the denialists who adhere to an ideology with a tenacity defying all logic and reason and ignoring the overwhelming weight of evidence that the world is warming and humans are responsible.
Umm ... No.
Overwhelming
falsified evidence - please stick to the facts, as exposed in Maiden22's full expose of the "stolen emails" - and thank God they were "stolen" otherwise by now Copenhagen attendees would still be rolling drunk, gloating in their coup!
So much for "science" - mix a bit of truth (you guess which "bit" is actually truth, because the lines are permanently blurred thanks to UEA CRU) with a good story, and you get pseudo-scientists like yourself, running around as many Internet forums as you can, sprouting half-cocked, your "truth".
Why you came onto a trading forum with almost 198,000 members is an easy one, but you are not a trader - you are a plant for an someone else's false ideas.
You use some stolen emails from CRU to make entirely unproved accusations about deliberate falsification of the HADCRUT surface temperature record
Umm ... (again) ... no.
In a court of law, the onus is on the proponent of the litigation, to provide the evidence. They can't produce pure evidence - no records and no interpretation by peer review - it has clearly been shown to be a circus act.
In this case, the non-alarmists have shown "reasonable doubt" vis a vis the "stolen emails" showing:
* falsifying of both data and records
* curve-fitting
* controlled and manipulative releases and publications
* failure to maintain the records the hypotheses were bases upon
* illegal destruction of records in the public interest
* failure to comply with a legal request under FOI legislation
* collusion to present a case that clearly was not supported by the data
* character assassination of those who questioned their "findings" or ...
* of those who wrote papers for publication expressing caution or an expression of other likely explanations for short-term data measurement
* blocking publication through coercion or intimidation
* ... the list reads like an Inspector Poirot novel!
There is a vast body of scientists (the list has already been linked to in this thread) who for many reasons have not, and will not add their support to the AGW hypothesis.
Craigie - these people are S-C-I-E-N-T-I-S-T-S and accredited C-L-I-M-A-T-O-L-O-G-I-S-T-S how dare you say they are wrong to take a stand against AGW.
Upstart!
What are you?
If this were to be fought in a court, the judge would throw the case for global warming, based on the "tainted evidence" so far out of court, that it would go from London to Copenhagen in one fling!
You are overlooking one thing - something much more powerful than a court.
Copenhagen.
A meeting of every interested and involved government on the planet threw out the case for global warming - that's a legitimate interpretation of events. If not ... if global warming R-E-A-L-L-Y was an issue, then at a global level, we would have had action. No country would ignore it, if indeed it really were an issue - it is NOT.
It is as I stated before, an opportunist grab for world domination based on current concern by ordinary thinking people for the well-being of the planet.
Most people are concerned, as am I, about the increasing pollution of the planet, making it like a huge rubbish dump. I support any effort to get it cleaned up and to reduce the impact of consumerism on the environment.
http://tinyurl.com/2xx234 for one example where action is needed.
Copenhagen was an attempt to crystallise that legitimate concern into an irreversible and binding political capitulation to a world body, to forever interfere with the affairs of every single country on the planet, based on a flim flam.
I'll spell it out for you in a few words: BIG BROTHER telling you what you can and can not do ... world government forever.
You see Craigie, you have failed to convince anyone of your climatology credentials - armchair climatology at best. Your climatologist degree comes from the University of Google, and if Google went down tonight, this thread would end.
What that proves is that you are following an idea - a belief system planted in your cranium by those who have manipulated your brain to believe exactly what you currently hold to be true - that the planet is warming, and that this warming is caused by human activity.
Again showing warming. You also choose to ignore the rising heat content of the worlds oceans - measured by independent researchers. The melting of the polar and Greenland ice caps, and the retreating glaciers also get the flick. All this evidence is countered by some stolen emails - what a laugh.
Craigie - you are a dupe - along with BS the yank.
If what you are trying to ram through here were true, we would already have action.
Your problem is that you blindly follow your sources as being credible.
In fact, one-by-one they are backing off from this AGW proposition, as the data do not stack up.
And, I propose, simply by NOT distancing themselves from the CRU UEA scam, they are losing whatever cred they might have had.
The whole thing was a beat-up going back to the mid nineties. Unfortunately, like communism, it will have its die-hards. You waste your time here Craigie - your "evidence" is NOT independent. The whole thing is a collusion, and shortly we will see some heads roll - damage control - to try to save the "science".
Good luck with that - but you can only fool some of the people some of the time ...!
If you would be so kind, please explain what relation some stolen CRU emails have to this: (links omitted)
That's an easy one Craigie - if you believe your own Bullsh!t it might be relevant. But by associating themselves with the pseudo-science of falsified documents, there is no cred in any of it.
I think you would need to publish your data, and establish the cred of the body producing the graphs.
The data are tainted.
The body has no cred.
In case you hadn't noticed, your carefully selected graphs show about 50-60 years of "measurement".
Now, how old is the planet?
How long did previous cycles last?
Were they warming or cooling cycles?
I'll bet you didn't even read
one line of Maiden22's link:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...e_analysis.pdf
I suggest you do ... in fact read it all ... I dare you.
Let me show you two "graphs" - same instrument, different time-frames.
I wonder if you have the intelligence to understand that a snapshot of 60 periods in a timeframe of 10,000 periods means squat?
Yet that is EXACTLY the rationale your graphs are trying to ram down our throats.
Get some perspective brother.
