Climategate Debunked

A very convincing rebuttal to the conspiratorial allegations being made by climate-change deniers in the wake of 13 years worth of hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia.

Note: The second part of the video (embedded link at the end) is also worth watching.

Advertisements

84 Comments

Filed under Conspiracy Theories, Environmental Policy

84 responses to “Climategate Debunked

  1. Very good. I need to share that with a few acquaintances.

  2. MoS

    Associated Press had a team go through all the e-mails, the lot of them, and analyze what was said. Then they had their material reviewed by scientists. Their conclusion was that “climategate” is the hoax.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/

  3. Guzzeuntite

    Nothing like a bit of self-serving spin-doctoring to … look at that! A squirrel!

  4. MoS

    That was a good catch, RT. thanks

  5. Grammin

    I trust neither side (nor should anyone).
    Each has an agenda, or several, and each wants to wrest billions of dollars to their side, either through action or inaction. In the end, we matter very little in what will come to pass. Whatever sound bite or scare tactic is more effective will inevitably sway the tide. The earth will likely decide when it has had enough of us anyway so a few do-gooders or do-nothings are meaningless. Man I am especially depressing and defeated today. Time for an egg nog latte.

  6. Guzzeuntite

    Excuse me, but that video is just a rehash of all the disputed … let’s call it “science.” It’s no rebuttal at all.

    Skeptics: “Looks like some data manipulation, corruption of the peer reviewing process, and hiding of raw data is going on.”

    Believers: “Is not! All the credentialed Climate Change Scientists agree that AGW is real. See, they are saying so again!”

    Color me underwhelmed.

  7. CWTF

    Guzzeuntite, they are not “Skeptics” but deniers – don’t try to misappropriate words and their meanings… that’s rather 1984ish of you.

  8. Guzzeuntite

    You wanna make something of it, CWTF?

  9. Ti-Guy

    He’s coming on to you, CWTF. Play hard to get.

  10. counter coulter

    RT: It seems rather silly that these e-mails would require rebuttal. Petroleum-backed shills hardly make for legitimate opposition. The fact that they’re given any sort of platform speaks more to our lack of intellectual honesty than anything else.

    Sorry to read of your latest troll infestation. I guess trolls are the toll to be exacted on those that wish to operate a blog.

    This one seems to be from the same place (NY) and has the same over-compensatory bravado as a previous one that challenged CWTF (I believe) to a fight. *yawn* all quite boring actually.

  11. @Guzzeuntite

    Actually, if you read the emails, and have followed the science, read the applicable papers, and followed the journal problems when that was news several years ago, there were no real surprises in the emails.

    The ‘trick’ was hardly a secret and there have been entire papers written about it. The IPPC report from 2001 mentioned the issue, and the 2007 IPPC report spent some time on that specific issue (4th report, pages 472-473):

    “…In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a).”

    For background, see my posts:

    http://section15.blogspot.com/2009/12/swifthack-topic-tree-rings-and.html

    and

    http://section15.blogspot.com/2009/12/swifthack-climategate-im-calling-bs-on.html

    The ‘where’s the warmth – travesty’ line I haven’t written on yet, but in that email he provided a link to a paper published a few months before all this broke, which explains exactly what he is talking about.

    The issues with the computer code are silly. just programmer comments. Still, people have traced the code and there’s nothing there. I will write on that more on my blog, but have other links if people are interested.

    The “deleted data” issue is ridiculous. All of the data still exists, held by The Met Office. The only data deleted was polluted data they didn’t know how to make use of in the 1980s — stuff heavily compromised by the heat island effect, and they had nearby stations not compromised to rely on. Peer-review work exists explaining what was done to transform the data.

    Anyone is free to get the original data and do better, if they can. That’s how science is done.

    The FOI request matter is the only real issue. I’m not surprised by it. These guys are inundated by frivolous requests and are actively falsely defamed by the same characters every damn day. I think they feel besieged and not well supported. They are assailed by well-funded and well-planned negative PR campaigns, and have no real communications strategy or money to counter it.

    The science is quite solid. At a basic level, we have satellites actively watching the greenhouse effect happen and worsen over time as well as satellites tracking how much energy from the sun enters our system (Earth) and how much exits. We have a net gain in energy, which is growing. It doesn’t always manifest in higher ground temperatures as the oceans are heating up, and glaciers are melting. But the bottom line is that it is only theory in the scientific technical sense: The greenhouse effect is happening, and it is due to carbon from the burning of fossil fuels.

    We know this because CO2 from fossil fuels has a different footprint than Co2 from biological processes (C13 vs C12). The proportion of C13 is growing compared to C12, as the overall concentration of CO2 increases.

    Here’s the thing. People mostly do not know the difference between good science and bad science. So a PR hack job that is successful enough to erode confidence in science can render even the most objective correct data and findings useless.

    This is very reminiscent to me of the evolution vs. ‘Intelligent Design’ war, except it’s been pushed up a notch to personally attack some of the scientists swiftboat-style in order to erode their credibility.

    The craziest thing is that these guys are only marginally important to the whole enterprise, and only in the field of paleoclimatology do they have prominence which is now arguably less important than it was ten years ago. The various hockey sticks were useful to understand if past climate has peaked like this before, but since we can now directly analyze the greenhouse effect and do a continual energy audit of the earth, we now know that the current warming is being caused by our activities, which means that there will be no natural correction mechanism to kick in as we keep increasing the quantity of CO2 in the air.

  12. You just don’t get it, do you Red?

    The East Anglia leak was designed to be innocuous. It was actually a black ops perpetrated by the environazi arm of the Hague-based lesbo-Masonic One-World Council of Elders in order to inoculate the public against a real leak by convincing us all that nothing more damaging than the negligible rubbish contained in the e-mails could ever conceivably issue forth from the accumulated climatological scholarship of the last few decades. And it’s worked a treat so far.

    This whole mess is just another plot against good, clean, God-fearing Americans. Fortunately, there’s a song they can sing to dispel the dark charm of the Bolshevist secularism Obama has wrought upon their land. I’m sure it’s been gracing Guzzeuntite’s iPod for some time now.

    We should sing it with our southern brethren in godly solidarity. Here it is:

  13. we invented hating glenn beck….

    KEvron

  14. we invented hating glenn beck…

    …after inventing Glenn Beck.

    Thanks a bunch, by the way.

  15. Guzzeuntite

    “He’s coming on to you, CWTF. Play hard to get.” — Ti-Guy

    No need to warn him, Ti-Guy; he’d never come out of hiding. There’s no need to waste my time. He’ll have to come to me.

    RSVP soon, CWTF.
    ________________

    Mark Francis, you just don’t understand the depth and breath of the scandal — or, rather, you choose not to understand. As I’ve said before here, I know people at GISS. They all share the same political views, not only among each other at GISS, but in East Anglia also. They share the same data. They share the same peer reviewers. They share the same economic interests. And as the cherry on top, the UN is involved. How can the process NOT be corrupted?

    They will have to start over. They should start over. Only in that way can The Science be proved to be science.

  16. ronald

    if you had studied the subject insteed you would have found that climategate is real

    AP reading the emails, check again, he is part of it ! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/aps-seth-borenstein-is-just-too-damn-cozy-with-the-people-he-covers-time-for-ap-to-do-somethig-about-it/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com

  17. Ti-Guy

    Shock! A science reporter communicates with scientists.

  18. They’re response to everything is “CONSPIRACY!”

    “I know people at GISS. They all share the same political views, not only among each other at GISS, but in East Anglia also…”

    Oh, for God’s sake. More conspiracy nonsense. And the beauty of it all is that it’s factless assertion.

    Actually, I love it when these guys get into this crap. They shoot their own feet off.

    I’ve verified the AP stuff long before that article was written. There’s stuff here I’ve been reading about for years.

    There is no scandal. The facts are there and verifiable. Innuendo does not trump truth.

    It’s very clear where the politics are, and it’s not the science.

  19. “…after inventing Glenn Beck”

    uh-uh. spontaneous generation.

    KEvron

  20. CWTF

    You wanna make something of it, CWTF?
    Not this shit again….

    None of the these chickenshits ever show up – maybe mommy does not give them bus money or these Ed Hardy t-shirt wearing morons forget what they wanted to do in the first place…

    Why does our school system keep on giving the special ed kids access to the internet?

  21. drake

    I’ll say this though. I’d rather have Stephen Harper than Stephane Dion negotiating on behalf of Canada in Copenhagen. Dion would sell the farm and saddle with undoable treaty obligations. Harper will only sign onto something we can actually comply with. We have to be realistic as to what we can do about this. Woe to whoever allows our economy to suffer in order to comply with UN targets.

    They will get hammered in the polls. Punishment will be swift.

  22. Ti-Guy

    That’s nice, dear.

  23. Drake

    The Liberals must eschew climate-mongering extremism. Ignatieff has been more balanced than Dion on this. It’s that type of moderation that will get the Libs back in the game.

  24. Ti-Guy

    That’s swell.

  25. Guzzeuntite

    “I know people at GISS. They all share the same political views, not only among each other at GISS, but in East Anglia also…” – Me

    “Oh, for God’s sake. More conspiracy nonsense. And the beauty of it all is that it’s factless assertion.”

    I see that you can string a bunch of English words together, and so I doubt you are as idiotic as that statement makes you seem. My statement has two facts: (1) I know people at GISS (my close relative for one) and (2) they all share the same political views. These cannot be “factless assertions,” MF. They are assertions, true, but you can only know they are “factless,” if I am lying. You have no reason to think so other than an unwillingness to believe me. Nevertheless, I am on record of saying this for years, and the recently-disclosed CRU emails seem to bear me out. If what I say is true, then my assertions are FACTS.

    This pro forma accusation is a brain-dead attempt to dismiss a statement without having to address it. You then conveniently try to make the factless assertion that I suffer from some sort of wacky conspiracy mongering.

    An example of a factless assertion, MF, is the statement , “There is no scandal.” (Yes, that assertion was made by you.) One can only say this if one totally and completely IGNORES the facts.

    You should think a little before you lash out, MF.

  26. Guzzeuntite

    Biting comments, Ti-Guy. Good job.

  27. Guzzeuntite

    CWTF,

    Your reputation as a no-show is well-known. I hear you are big talk and no action.

    No response to this comment, would be wise, CWTF.

  28. CWTF

    Ahh Guzzeuntite wants to be all manly…

    Look asswipe, the likes of you periodically come and spout shit on these blogs. The one uniting factor is the complete idiocy that binds you to your conservative brothers.

    There is a big difference between being a skeptic and a plain ideologue denier. Once you know the difference, please come back and play….

  29. Guzzeuntite

    And now the Russians are saying there is good basis to say there is indeed a ManBearPig scandal, Mark Francis:

    http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

  30. Guzzeuntite

    “There is a big difference between being a skeptic and a plain ideologue denier.” – CWTF

    Indeed, there is, CWTF. YOU should learn the difference. Here’s a hint: A denier is not a skeptic whom you dislike for whatever personal reason.

    I don’t “want to me manly,” CWTF, as you say. I AM manly. And a man can detect a twerp on sight or on first hearing.

    Just saying.

  31. Guzzeuntite

    So far this is the only credible evidence of AGW:

    But I’m not sure I trust its source. Someone told me it came from Dan Rather.

  32. CWTF

    ThAnd now the Russians are saying there is good basis to say there is indeed a ManBearPig scandal, Mark Francis:
    Andrey Nikolayevich Illarionov (not the Russians), is from the Moscow Based Institute for Economic Analysis (IEA), a Libertarian, senior fellow at the CATO Institute and for some reason seems to admire the Frasier institute…

    In other words a right-wing ideologue…

    Care to play again when you have facts and science behind you?

  33. Guzzeuntite

    First of all, you are doing the classic “attack the messenger,” Twerpitude.

    Second, two can play at that game since it is the left that making all the noise about ManBearPig.

    Third, try this: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yf9vc2c

    Fourth, the link says, “Moscow-based (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. … Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

    “Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

    “The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.”

    I am pretty sure they are talking about Moscow Russia, not Moscow Iowa.

    AGW is All Gone ‘Way.

    Let’s see how wonderful wonderful Copenhagen turns out.

    Oh, and fifth: Yer a scardy-cat.

  34. Guzzeuntite

    “Care to play again when you have facts and science behind you?”

    That the problem, Twerpitude, the evidnece is accumulating that The Scientists were not doing science.

    And that’s a shame.

  35. Fisking an anonymous person named “Guzzeuntite”
    =================================

    In response to my comment left at

    https://redtory.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/climategate-debunked/#comment-36657

    an anonymous user left this comment:

    https://redtory.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/climategate-debunked/#comment-36724

    Here’s a look at that reply.

    There, an anonymous person named “Guzzeuntite” said:

    “My statement has two facts: (1) I know people at GISS (my close relative for one) and (2) they all share the same political views. These cannot be “factless assertions,” MF.”

    Made by an anonymous person “Guzzeuntite”, without citing external references, this is all unverifiable, thus it is all assertion. Assertions are not facts, thus what the anonymous “Guzzeuntite” says is factless.

    The assertion “(1) I know people at GISS (my close relative for one)” is unverifiable.

    Furthermore, anonymous “Guzzeuntite” is clearly relying on hearsay as he/she states that he/she knows some but not all people at GISS, but knows that “they all share the same political views.” It is fallacious to know some, but to know something so personal about ‘all’, thus there must be a reliance upon hearsay. The conclusion “they all share the same political views” is not factual as it is based upon a fallacy. It is an assertion. Assertions are not facts.

    This assertion is vague and of no value. Who are the sources of this hearsay? How was this determined? Can people really have such a completely shared homogeneous viewpoint? Why is it assumed that persons with shared political viewpoints means that their work is unreliable? Why do we assume that this hearsay is from a person or persons who is/are unbiased and reliable? What methodology did they use to come to this alleged conclusion? As Guzzeuntite is anonymous, how can we conclude anything about his/her objectivity and methodology?

    “They are assertions, true, but you can only know they are “factless,” if I am lying.”

    We do not have sufficient information to determine the veracity of the anonymous “Guzzeuntite” but we do have sufficient information to establish that his/her statements lack verifiable evidence, and thus are assertions. Assertions may be true, but in absence of proof, let alone credible evidence, assertions are not verifiable, and cannot be treated as facts. Furthermore, the claim that these assertion are either truth or lies is an example of the fallacy of false dilemma. There at least one other option: “Guzzeuntite” could also be wrong, but sincere.

    “You have no reason to think so other than an unwillingness to believe me.”

    I have demonstrated a highly logical progression of thought as to why the anonymous “Guzzeuntite” assertions are fallacious and unreliable.

    “Nevertheless, I am on record of saying this for years”

    What record? How can we even be sure the anonymous “Guzzeuntite” is one person?

    “and the recently-disclosed CRU emails seem to bear me out.”

    A detailed read of the emails and related literature supports only the notion that there may have been a violation of FOI regs. My blog, http://Section15.blogspot.com contains numerous links on it’s sidebar to debunks of the various spurious claims being made. I have made links to references above, which the anonymous “Guzzeuntite” has provided no rebuttal other than assertion. Furthermore, the anonymous “Guzzeuntite” has made no credible attempt to find error in the video in the post above these comments:

    https://redtory.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/climategate-debunked/#comment-36638

    The anonymous “Guzzeuntite” responded to the post with only assertions despite the video containing references and examples. See comments

    https://redtory.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/climategate-debunked/#comment-36581

    and

    https://redtory.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/climategate-debunked/#comment-36587

    ” If what I say is true, then my assertions are FACTS.”

    If the anonymous “Guzzeuntite” has facts to back up his/her assertions, then the assertions are true. However, as “Guzzeuntite” present assertions as facts and provides no facts to back up those assertions, we cannot establish anything.

    “This pro forma accusation is a brain-dead attempt to dismiss a statement without having to address it.”

    Fallacy: Ad hominem

    Also, the anonymous “Guzzeuntite” has made factless assertions, as demonstrated. This was and is a prima facie argument by me.

    Also, in my extended, cited comments in

    https://redtory.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/climategate-debunked/#comment-36638

    the anonymous “Guzzeuntite” said in response

    “Mark Francis, you just don’t understand the depth and breath of the scandal”

    Fallacy: Ad hominem

    Once again, no facts presented, just assertion.

    “There is no scandal.” (Yes, that assertion was made by you.) ”

    It is a fabricated negative PR campaign, similar to the Swift Boating of John Kerry. I once again reference my blog’s sidebar as evidence. I continue to accumulate evidence.

    To the anonymous “Guzzeuntite”:

    Please provide:

    1. Your identity
    2. Your contacts at GISS
    3. A list of who you have evaluated at GISS
    4. A list of who you relied upon to further your research
    5. Your methodology
    6. Your notes

    And whatever else you have to support your sweeping assertions.

    Going forward, this fisk will be referenced in other threads.

  36. The IEA thing is nothing unless it is peer-reviewed.

  37. Guzzeuntite

    “The IEA thing is nothing unless it is peer-reviewed.’

    Oh, here we go ’round the mulberry bush ….

    I tire of that mindless chant.

    I told you to read the emails. They clearly indicate that the peer review process has been corrupted.

    To hell with AGW’s peer review process. Start the AGW studies all over again — this time with 100% transparency.

  38. I have the emails and have read them. I have provided ample rebuttal, which you refuse to comment on.

    “I told you to read the emails. They clearly indicate that the peer review process has been corrupted.”

    No true. Cite something and provide the link.

  39. The IEA report does not say what some say it says, it seems.

    See http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php

    “The problem here is the IEA report does not support the claims made in the news story. I’ve reproduced the final graph from the report below. The red curve is the temperature trend using the 121 Russian stations that CRU has released data for, while the blue hockey stick is from a larger set of 476 stations. I’ve put them on top of the CRU temperatures for northern extratropics. The red and blue curves agree very well in the period after 1950, thus confirming the CRU temperatures. Well done, IEA!”

    The red and blue curves do diverge in the 19th century, but the one that provides more support for anthropogenic global warming is the blue hockey stick. The red curve shows warming in the 19th century before there were significant CO2 emissions, so it weakens the case that global warming is man-made. If CRU (not HAdley as claimed in the Russian news story) have “tampered” with the data, it would seem that they must have been trying to make a case against AGW.

    The IEA analysis is, in any case, misguided. CRU has not released all the station data they use, so the red curve is not the CRU temperature trend for Russia at all. If you want that, all you have to do is download the gridded data and average all the grid cells in Russia. You have to wonder why the IEA did not do this.

    Since Russia is a pretty fair chunk of the land north of 30 degrees north, the CRU graph above is a rough approximation of the what the CRUTEM3 trends for Russia is, and you can see that it looks like the blue curve and not the red one.

    Steve McIntyre will no doubt be demanding the IEA’s data and code for their study. No doubt.”

  40. Guzzeuntite

    “I have the emails and have read them.”

    Is this really true?

    No true [the the peer review process has been corrupted]. Cite something and provide the link.

    If you really read them, you know exactly what I am referring to. Go find it yourself, priest; it will take Goolge 0.17 seconds to get thousands of hits.

  41. Ti-Guy

    No true [the the peer review process has been corrupted].

    If I understand this illiterate scrawl correctly, uh no, it hasn’t.

  42. Drake

    AGW is a bunch of b.s that gullible people like Ti-Guy lap up.

    Luckily for us, Obama’s going to turtle, given that his U.S. poll numbers are tanking at present. If the American public thinks he got rolled in Copenhagen, they will turn on him. His handlers have no doubt told him that.

    It’ll be nothing but pious talk from Obama, who’ll be heartbroken that he couldn’t go further.

  43. Guzzeuntite

    I just copied and pasted Mark Francis’s illiterate scrawl, Ti-Guy, and then added the exceedingly literate stuff in the brackets.

    I am too much of a gentleman to point out the learning diabilities of others.

  44. Guzzeuntite

    Re: Illiterate scrawl

    I know! Ti-Guy is a sic bastard!

    Har!

  45. “It takes Goggle 0.4 seconds.”

    No. Cite something specific. Cite the emails directly and make your case. I’m not going to refute the opinionated ramblings produced by a Google search. Truth, like science, is not a popularity contest. I’m willing only to refuting what you specifically say, not what someone else says, which you may or may not agree with.

    Oh, God. You returned a hit on “Mark Steyn.” Please, don’t make it that easy. He’s probably arguing evil Muslims are actually running the CRU or something.

  46. Guzzeuntite

    “Truth, like science, is not a popularity contest,” said Mark Francis

    Too true! The every single AGW scientist says the same damn thing every time they are challenged. They say that we must carefully consider opposing positions and proceed cautiously before taking costly action to counteract …

    Oh, wait …

  47. Ti-Guy

    Mark, stop engaging the psychotic substantively. He’s a well-established professional troll who’s annoyed Canadian bloggers for years under various pseudonyms.

    He’s not a teenager either, by the way, which is shudder-inducingly creepy.

  48. Guzzeuntite

    “Oh, God. You returned a hit on ‘Mark Steyn.'”

    The horror! The horror!

    How about George Monbiot?

  49. Drake

    Apparently it’s starting to look a lot like Christmas in Copenhagen:

    “Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming
    By Christian Wienberg in Bloomberg News

    Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) — World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight.

    “Temperatures will stay low at least the next three days,” Henning Gisseloe, an official at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute, said today by telephone, forecasting more snow in coming days. “There’s a good chance of a white Christmas.””

    Too funny. They’ve had 7 white Christmases in the last century.

    AGW and it’s supposed future effects remains an unproven hypothesis.

    Hope Obama brought a good pair of winter boots to trudge around Copenhagen.

  50. Guzzeuntite

    “Mark, stop engaging the psychotic substantively. He’s a well-established professional troll who’s annoyed Canadian bloggers for years under various pseudonyms.” — Tigger

    Poor hurt Ti-Guy. It was you who first engaged me, of course.

    And LOST! Heh heh heh heh.

    Silly Canadian, always falling into my nefarious Yankee trap.

  51. Guzzeuntite

    “He’s not a teenager either, by the way, which is shudder-inducingly creepy.”

    Tiggy, however, is. But at least he acts his age.

  52. Guzzeuntite

    Well … now that Ti-Guy has banned any more comments from Mark Francis to me, I must be off, for I have never seen a member of the reality-based community violate the diktats of Tiggy.

    Guzzeuntite, PROFESSIONAL Troll, PhD, M.S., Licensed in the states of New York, Connecticut, and in the Cayman Islands (exp. 4/15/2012)

  53. Drake confuses weather and climate. Quelle surprise.

    Good job Mark. I think this video is quite good at examining the choices we have ahead.

    Where I would part ways with the presenter is I would say that he labels his “Column A”/”Climate change is false” box is a purely native outcome. I believe that even if we retool our economy as if climate change is going to happen and it doesn’t, we’d be ahead as far as moving off fossil fuel dependence. That will also help minimize against the political, health, social and environmental catastrophe that will hit us when oil becomes too expensive to use in modern society. Most climate change measures push us toward the path of energy sustainability anyway.

  54. “box is a purely native outcome” should be “box is a purely negative outcome”

  55. Too funny. They’ve had 7 white Christmases in the last century.

    Too funny. It’s unlikely that they will have a white Christmas this time either. The whole 4″ of snow they received will undoubtedly have melted by then.

    Snow isn’t uncommon in Copenhagen in December.

  56. Guzzeuntite

    “Drake confuses weather and climate. Quelle surprise.”

    I’ve never heard that before! Nevertheless, we’ve had 10 years or so of abnormally cold weather globally (everyone knows that short of the geniuses producing or buying the cooked books). I wonder at what point we will be able to say, “Gee, the climate, she has gotten as cold as a street-walker in Yellowknife in January.”

    Also, “quelle”?????

  57. I know you’re only an American but even most Americans know that “Quelle surprise” is French for “What a surprise”.

    Secondly, about that “abnormally cold weather”: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Decade/climate-2009-caps-hottest-decade-record/story?id=9283733

  58. Guzzeuntite

    Scary video, someone!

    ME? I say, pocket the benefits of GW (Canada will certainly be a beneficiary; have you ever been there? Colllllld. Brrrr!) and deal with the costs.

    There’s nothing we can do about it. Although, I, as a war-monger, am all for nuking the Sun, who I think is responsible for all this terrible suffering we’ve been experiencing. And by suffering, I mean hearing eople like you tell me over and over and over and over how weather is not climate.

    WE HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME!

    We just don’t care.

  59. Guzzeuntite

    “I know you’re only an American but even most Americans know that “Quelle surprise” is French for “What a surprise”.

    Quoi?

  60. “We just don’t care.”

    This is the first truthful statement I have seen you write so far.

    You don’t care about the next generation. You don’t care about poor people. You don’t care about extinct species. You don’t care about anyone.

    It’s the so-called conservative mentality in a nutshell: “I’ve got mine. Fuck you. Now why won’t you fix the pothole on the road I use to get to work?”

  61. Guzzeuntite

    “You don’t care about the next generation. You don’t care about poor people. You don’t care about extinct species. You don’t care about anyone.”

    No, someone. I thought I made that clear: I don’t care because I don’t think GW, even if it happens, will, net net, be a bad thing.

    Get off you adolescent stereotypes of conservatives. It makes you sound silly, stupid, or bad.

  62. Guzzeuntite

    “You don’t care about the next generation.”

    That’s the funniest statement I’ve seen YOU write so far. I have two kids (they’re in the next generation, FYI). And you have … ?

  63. But the stereotype is correct.

    I don’t care because I don’t think GW, even if it happens, will, net net, be a bad thing.

    Spoken like a true ignorant. The huge dislocation of humanity because of shifting local climate will lead to hardship and suffering for millions. This will not only affect 3rd world peoples but those in places like New York, where the subway will be flooded, and in London.

    Prevention would cost much less financially and in human life than doing nothing.

    Thanks for confirming my stereotype. No one who cares about anyone, would remain so invincibly ignorant.

  64. “You don’t care about the next generation.”

    That’s the funniest statement I’ve seen YOU write so far. I have two kids (they’re in the next generation, FYI). And you have … ?

    And you are fighting everything that will make their lives and the society and planet they will inhabit more prosperous.

    I have two nephews 6 and 9.

  65. Guzzeuntite

    “Spoken like a true ignorant. The huge dislocation of humanity because of shifting local climate will lead to hardship and suffering for millions. This will not only affect 3rd world peoples but those in places like New York, where the subway will be flooded, and in London.”

    Hmm hmm. The models show this. Right?

  66. Guzzeuntite

    “But the stereotype [about conservatives] is correct,” says someone.

    Beautiful. And you must talk with a lisp, wear flamboyant clothes, be really really into leather, swish like a $10 hooker with an injured wrist, and molest little boys. Oh, and play “It’s Raining Men” till your neighbors riot.

  67. What do you think rising sea levels are going to do to places that are close to sea level? What do you think climate change is going to do when it comes to wind and rain patterns?

    I have had enough of your stupidity for one day.

  68. Beautiful. And you must talk with a lisp, wear flamboyant clothes, be really really into leather, swish like a $10 hooker with an injured wrist, and molest little boys. Oh, and play “It’s Raining Men” till your neighbors riot.

    Maybe I do. But I do care about others, which says more than you.

  69. Guzzeuntite

    “What do you think rising sea levels are going to do to places that are close to sea level?”

    Like, it’s fer sher t’ happen? Thought so. Well, do what humanity always does. Deal with it when and if it happens.

    “What do you think climate change is going to do when it comes to wind and rain patterns?”

    Change them? Like it’s always done?

    “I have had enough of your stupidity for one day.”

    Go back to school, then.

  70. So if the sea levels rise and “humanity deals with it”, you’d rather pay the billions more in taxes to keep Manhattan and its infrastructure from sinking than prevent it now (or make your kids do it.) So if annual rain levels fall in the American midwest or the annual ice pack in the California Sierra Nevada ceases to appear and supply water to the southwest, you’d rather “deal” with the food shortages and dislocation of people who can no longer live in the Southwest than prevent it now (or make your kids do it.)

    Wow. Do you apply this philosophy to everything?

    About the school thing. Project much?

  71. Guzzeuntite

    “But I do care about others …”

    Sure you do.

    “… which says more than you.”

    YOU should get an award, someone, and so should every progressive, because only progressives care — care so much that they should rule the world and determine how we live our lives. What cars to drive, what kind of house to live in, how it’s built, what kind of light bulbs we use, how much “carbon” we produce, what we can throw away, what has to be recycled, what kind of food we eat, how we conduct business, where we conduct business, where we can smoke, if we can smoke, where and from whom we get our health care, etc., etc., etc., etc. ad nauseam.

  72. Navvy

    Don’t forget seat belts. Conservatives hate seat belts.

  73. Guzzeuntite

    “So if the sea levels rise and “humanity deals with it”, you’d rather pay the billions more in taxes to keep Manhattan and its infrastructure from sinking than prevent it now (or make your kids do it.) So if annual rain levels fall in the American midwest or the annual ice pack in the California Sierra Nevada ceases to appear and supply water to the southwest, you’d rather “deal” with the food shortages and dislocation of people who can no longer live in the Southwest than prevent it now (or make your kids do it.)”

    You watch too many disaster movies, but what the hell. Yes. Because somewhere else (Manitoba?) will get warmer and wetter. The food will come from those. Your frozen country will become the world’s bread basket, and I … I will sit under my beach front coconut tree in New York (currently 500 ft above sea level) and collect my Social Security, which you angels … I mean progressives have shown it in your hearts to give me.

    And mankind will thrive, because it always has when it got warmer. i can hardly wait. I only pray to be alive when it happens.

  74. Guzzeuntite

    “Don’t forget seat belts. Conservatives hate seat belts.”

    Thanks. Tools of the Devil.

  75. Yeah. How dare we progressives want a society where food is safe to eat, where people have safe and decent housing and business practises are ethical? How dare we progressives want to conserve oil so that our kids are left in a lurch when it gets scarce? How dare we progressives want to recycle things so that they don’t go into landfills and poison groundwater? How dare we progressives want to live in a world where we can breathe fresh air and not be subjected to smokers which after all is a chosen habit?

    How dare we progressives think ahead and think about others. We should just not give a shit about others or our future consequence and treat others and our environment like the toilet God gave us.

  76. And mankind will thrive, because it always has when it got warmer. i can hardly wait. I only pray to be alive when it happens.

    It may with all that burning stupid around.

  77. Guzzeuntite

    “It may with all that burning stupid around.”

    You don’t do funny all that well.

  78. Guzzeuntite

    “… treat others and our environment like the toilet God gave us.”

    Uh, you want to rephrase that? If God gave us a toilet why wouldn’t we treat it like … a toilet?

  79. CWTF

    You don’t do funny all that well.
    You don’t do comprehension very well – that explains your lack of funny (amongst other things).

  80. Guzzeuntite

    “You don’t do comprehension very well – that explains your lack of funny (amongst other things).”

    That was … idiotic, twerpitude. Expected though. I’ve heard all about you.

  81. “Too true! The every single AGW scientist says the same damn thing every time they are challenged. They say that we must carefully consider opposing positions and proceed cautiously before taking costly action to counteract …”

    Well, I haven;t asked every one, but yes, the one I follow do.

    You’ve jut drank far too much Kool aid.

    Anyway, Guzzeuntite here claims to have a close contact at GISS, and thus has clear evidence that they are all politically homogeneous andcant; be trusted. He.she/they claim that this extends all the way to the CRU!

    Funny thing, though. When I ask for disclosure, “Guzzeuntite” refuses to reveal any evidence to back this extraordinary claim up!

    That must of been one heck of a research effort to figure out everyone’s political leanings.

    So, tell us, “Guzzeuntite”, what was your methodology?

  82. “But the stereotype is correct.”

    the nature of a stereotype is that it does have an element of truth to it, and that’s where guzzeunshite’s own offering fails.

    KEvron

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s