Hackers Catch Prove Global Warming Fraud
in [Physics]
|
From: Robert Higgins on 29 Nov 2009 14:25 On Nov 29, 1:55 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > Marvin the Martian wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:40:03 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > Climatological cooling over a 30 year period (30 years is the norm > >> in climatology) does no show up in the data. > > >> CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level > >> increase, are all consistent with each other. Real > >> impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather > >> patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting. > > >> The global data CLEARLY shows: > > >> Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2 > >> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png > >> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106 > >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm > > >> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase > >> http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trend... > > >> And accompanying Sea Level Rise > > >>http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/0.... > > >> There are many sources of good data > >> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ > >> http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php > > >> Here's some data from Iowa State University > >> http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html > > >> More from University of Iowa > >> http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/faculty-staff/profile-directory/cee/... > > >> Franzen - The Chemistry and Physics of Global Climate Change > >> http://hfranzen.org/ > >> http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pd > > > That's all you got? Mindless cut and pastes of stuff that I've already > > debunked? > > > You're not embarrassed by that at all, are you? > > > Can you even admit that the hacked e-mails show fraud? Try it. Stick to > > the damned subject. > > > Answer these two questions, without a cut and paste from one of your bot > > replies. > > > Do the East Anglia e-mails show that there is global cooling or not? > > Global warming is happening independent of emails. The impact of > increasing temperature is showing up in many way in many parts of > the world. I don't really care much about the East Anglia e-mails. > > > > > Do the East Anglia E-mails show that there is an intentional hiding of > > the cooling? > > There is no cooling to hide, Marvin. You would do well to start > taking global climate change seriously. Do YOU take the threat seriously enough to support the only action that could conceivably affect CO2 levels, i.e., nuclear power?
From: Sam Wormley on 29 Nov 2009 14:50 Robert Higgins wrote: > > Do YOU take the threat seriously enough to support the only action > that could conceivably affect CO2 levels, i.e., nuclear power? I want to get the science right. I'm not trying to influence others' mitigation behaviors. It's interesting that a science discussion group I belong to will be looking at nuclear power next week.
From: columbiaaccidentinvestigation on 29 Nov 2009 14:58 On Nov 29, 10:01 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 29, 12:46 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation > > > > > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Nov 29, 7:46 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Nov 29, 10:22 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation > > > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 28, 9:50 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:30:36 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > Hey Marvin--You need to start taking global climate change seriously. > > > > > > I do. I want to see criminal penalties for the frauds lied and said that > > > > > it was warming when the earth was cooling. This is a trillion dollar > > > > > scam. Perhaps put them on trial for high treason. > > > > > > You don't give a rip about scientific integrity nor about your country. > > > > > and what about cyber crime? > > > > What about it? Do you support the vigorous prosecution of every > > > newspaper reporter that "finds" classified or private documents? Or > > > only those whose political views disagree with your own? > > > i have had to abide by the law when conducting my own investigation, > > thats what i am basing my argument on. I do not condone cybercrime, > > so i would have you expand on the words "finds" in your above > > statement, as to how it relates to the work of a hacker. > > You're joking, right? When the New York Times or Washington Post > publishes classified data, how do you think it gets it in the first > place? > Don't you know that leaking classified intel is a crime? Yet how many > people have been prosecuted for leaking? Who was prosecuted for > leaking info on terrorist renditions, or the "black prisons"? > > If some sells me a VCR for 10 bucks, saying it "fell off a truck", I > can (and will be) prosecuted for receiving stolen property. If a New > York Times reporter gets the same deal on a stack of documents, every > reporter from here to Kalamazoo will invoke privileges. Almost every > significant investigation involves such practices, without which the > press wold accomplish little. Unless, of course, the story smacks down > the Left, in which case everyone becomes outraged. > > Are you seriously suggesting that newspapers don't traffic in hacked > or stolen documents all the time?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - first im suggesting you are skipping over how the information was aquired, which was a cyber crime. Next ethical use of information obtained from a source is most certainly in question here, so dont try to make left vs right, your example is an issue of ethics, mine does not waiver from left to right, does yours?
From: Robert Higgins on 29 Nov 2009 15:26 On Nov 29, 2:58 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 29, 10:01 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Nov 29, 12:46 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation > > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 29, 7:46 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > On Nov 29, 10:22 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation > > > > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 28, 9:50 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:30:36 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > > Hey Marvin--You need to start taking global climate change seriously. > > > > > > > I do. I want to see criminal penalties for the frauds lied and said that > > > > > > it was warming when the earth was cooling. This is a trillion dollar > > > > > > scam. Perhaps put them on trial for high treason. > > > > > > > You don't give a rip about scientific integrity nor about your country. > > > > > > and what about cyber crime? > > > > > What about it? Do you support the vigorous prosecution of every > > > > newspaper reporter that "finds" classified or private documents? Or > > > > only those whose political views disagree with your own? > > > > i have had to abide by the law when conducting my own investigation, > > > thats what i am basing my argument on. I do not condone cybercrime, > > > so i would have you expand on the words "finds" in your above > > > statement, as to how it relates to the work of a hacker. > > > You're joking, right? When the New York Times or Washington Post > > publishes classified data, how do you think it gets it in the first > > place? > > Don't you know that leaking classified intel is a crime? Yet how many > > people have been prosecuted for leaking? Who was prosecuted for > > leaking info on terrorist renditions, or the "black prisons"? > > > If some sells me a VCR for 10 bucks, saying it "fell off a truck", I > > can (and will be) prosecuted for receiving stolen property. If a New > > York Times reporter gets the same deal on a stack of documents, every > > reporter from here to Kalamazoo will invoke privileges. Almost every > > significant investigation involves such practices, without which the > > press wold accomplish little. Unless, of course, the story smacks down > > the Left, in which case everyone becomes outraged. > > > Are you seriously suggesting that newspapers don't traffic in hacked > > or stolen documents all the time?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > first im suggesting you are skipping over how the information was > aquired, which was a cyber crime. I get it - you are "shocked, shocked!" that someone in the press would do something unethical/illegal. Shocked! > Next ethical use of information > obtained from a source is most certainly in question here, so dont try > to make left vs right, your example is an issue of ethics, mine does > not waiver from left to right, does yours? What is remotely "unethical" here? The Left routinely supports disclosures of ANY nature, from ANY source, even if it directly jeopardizes national security. Are you saying, for example, that the NYT disclosing the "warrantless wiretapping" program didn't damage USA security? Yet, this is considered an adequate trade-off for freedom of the press and an informed public. Where is there ANYWHERE near the same situation here? The worst that happens here is that some pompous scientists are mildly embarassed. Since they are accepting public funds, and are holding themselves out as public figures (proselytizing to the public), they deserve no greater privacy than an MP or governor.
From: Robert Higgins on 29 Nov 2009 15:29
On Nov 29, 2:50 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > Robert Higgins wrote: > > > Do YOU take the threat seriously enough to support the only action > > that could conceivably affect CO2 levels, i.e., nuclear power? > > I want to get the science right. I'm not trying to influence > others' mitigation behaviors. I appreciate that. Unfortunately, many others are interested in climate science as a politcal dodge. > > It's interesting that a science discussion group I belong to > will be looking at nuclear power next week. You'll notice that, with a few exceptions, precisely those who are most "concerned" about climate change are tose who are most vociferously opposed to nuclear power. |