Posted on 11/22/2011 8:44:44 AM PST by goodnesswins
The one I replied to; the link in #48.
I don’t use bittorrents, so I’m no help there. the link in #48 is a direct download of the zip file.
OH, It IS being focused on....by LOTS of people!!!
Thanks! :-)
BFL
Hmmmm... revealing tidbit or clever misdirection on the part of the leakers.
Hmmmm....wonder how many times they appear? Taking the time to change points to commas could take a LOOOONNGGG time if there are many of them....or, maybe they just wrote a program to do it??? HA!
No.
They are trying to guilt, panic and browbeat countries into giving them 37 trillion dollars based upon an educated guess AT BEST scenario.
We - you and I and probably everyone else who frequents this site - see the folly. Many, many others (I’d hazard a guess to say the vast majority) do not.
Very interesting.
According to the article, this is not a quote from the climate scientists. It is a quote from a text file, presumably by those responsible for the leak, that is intended to provide context to the folly of the climate hysteria.
It follows a statement about billions living on less than $2 a day. The leaker apparently feels that spending $37 trillion on unproven science is a bad idea.
I'm not sure where the $37 trillion number comes from originally. Even in adjusted dollars, that's 250 times the total cost of the Apollo program.
From people I have heard....they pretty much make up numbers....or create “facts” to support them....
See www.ISPYONSALEM.com .....interviews with Dr. Tim Ball
2563, from Barrie Pitock
“>(b) Ensure that such misleading papers do not continue to appear in the
>offending journals by getting proper scientific standards applied to
>refereeing and editing. Whether that is done publicly or privately may not
>matter so much, as long as it happens. It could be through boycotting the
>journals, but that might leave them even freer to promulgate misinformation.
>To my mind that is not as good as getting the offending editors removed and
>proper processes in place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might
>work, or concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors.
>(c) A journalistic expose of the unscientific practices might work and
>embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies (if they are capable of being
>embarassed) e.g., through a reliable lead reporter for Science or Nature.
>Offending editors could be labelled as “rogue editors”, in line with current
>international practice? Or is that defamatory?”
Having done some computer modeling in my former career, I have yet to see any evidence that these models have been proven. Can they start their model running for 1911 and arrive at conditions existing in 2011?
No, they can't. Don't even ask.
Here are the current news items on Google concerning ‘Climategate’:
That was cruel. Funny, but cruel.
Actually the problem is they have a theory. This requires a paper to be written and then tested by peers. ie Cold Fusion.
What has been done is a theory has been submitted and the data is then manipulated so it appears to match reality. This is then used to justify why it doesn’t need peer review.
Members of the scientific community have no access to the raw data or how it is gathered. Only the polished results with only vague references to how it is gathered.
A perfect example is the “fact” that Antarctic ice is melting. Much of this data is gathered near an active volcano.
Another “fact” is glaciers are melting. As anyone from MN can tell you, even though ice melts at 32deg, it also evaporates at lower temps. Without continued snowfall, eventually it vanishes due to evaporation.
It goes way deeper than that. I had the pleasure of hearing one of these guys speak. His background is that he has been a part of this fellowship of climate folks for over 30 years. 30 YEARS! This is his life work. He is a professor in the field, he regularly attends these various world conferences, he participates as part of the IPCC. He publishes papers.
These is no way this guy can let himself accept any information that would make his life work a lie. At stake is his self-worth, his income and facing that he wasted 30 years of his life.
In any other field a scientist can make a mark for himself by proving everyone else wrong. There is fame and money for these scientists who can turn accepted truths on their heads. In this field, there is only total loss. Loss of self, loss of fame and loss of income.
Even religion does not have this strong a hold on most people. These people cannot ever be independent on this issue. They have too much at stake. These emails merely provide a glimpse into their very sad world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.