Comments on: Climategate II: The coverup!

By: EuropaNetwork Norway » Blog Archive » Climategate nummer 2

EuropaNetwork Norway » Blog Archive » Climategate nummer 2 — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:22:02 +0000

[...] Les mer climategate.com [...]

By: Squidly

Squidly — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:55:45 +0000

I think the most important line in that whole email is that last one (bold is mine):

I want the NAS to be a transformational agent in America

This is a HUGE red flag for me. Paul Falkowski is a “progressive”. Make no mistake about this. This one sentence tells me loud and clear, that this guy is in no way concerned about the “science”. He is concerned with, and only with, contributing to and the continuation of, the “progressive movement”.

Ask yourself, what the hell is a “transformational agent” ??
Ask yourself, what does a “transformational agent” have to do with science?

Then, look back that the rest of the email and pick out the number of times he targets media and children.

This is the kind of scary sh$#t that needs to be stopped!!! … Warning! … Stop this now or suffer from it later!

By: Tom Roe

Tom Roe — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:48:27 +0000

Interesting as a demonstration of what we have always claimed i.e. there’s an orchestrated political campaign behind climate change science. The emails answer the question “why would all of the scientists say the same thing” better than a detailed explanation that they do not. And to echo an earlier point the idiots babble about a lack of snow in Vancouver but dismiss record snow cover in the lower 48 and have the nerve to point out that weather isn’t climate. We use weather as satire to make exactley this claim because the alarmists have been abusing weather for years. I will note the dredging up of Joe McCarthy by the reprehensible Stephen Scnieder of Stanford. This is the line of attack that we can expect when congressional hearings begin. McCarthyism is a very complicated and misunderstood subject here in the USA. On the Left it is both a shield and a sword carefully crafted by the world’s most sophisticated myth creation machine. On the Right it is treated as a painful lesson in how not to handle a winning issue. McCarthy started out right about the lack of proper security under the Roosevelt/Truman administrations and ended badly as a wild tale spinning drunk. The list of 17 is meant to evoke the Hollywood 10 which had nothing much to do with Senator McCarthy since it was driven by the HUAC out of The House. The McCarthy spector more than anything else probably explains the reluctance of mainstream Republican’s to engage in the climate debate. That Dr. Scnieder advocates it to his colleages tells us much about what has been driving his “science” these many years.

By: cloud10

cloud10 — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:23:05 +0000

I liked the Stephen Schneider comment :

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: “Stephen H Schneider” To: SECTION63@XXX.XXX.XXX
Sent: Monday, March 1, 2010 2:39:37 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [FOR_SECTION_63] Section 63 Action Agenda Reconsidered

"Please don't make me miss yet another prediction!@#$% I have to live with cooling to warming "flipflop" every day, phony as that frame is given the history in Chapter 1 of my book."

By: Judas Priest

Judas Priest — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 06:19:39 +0000

Interesting to see that he’s already contacted Leftists in the reliable Hollywood contingent. I do wonder what kind of nonsense they’re brewing for our kids.

Want to stop this? Send info on Climategate to everyone you know. Work hard to get Conservatives in power this November.

By: jrr canada

jrr canada — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 04:07:44 +0000

Is it possible this “scientist” does not understand the basic scientific method? Never mind yet another public relations campaign to convince us dummies, how about we see some science in return for our tax dollars.Show me the evidence that makes them so sure of their belief, like all the data, the entire massaging of said data,the rational for these massages, and the means by which their hypothesis can be tested. That is how I can be convinced.Not by appeals to authorities and insinuation that all who ask for evidence are stupid.

By: IW LOCAL 03

IW LOCAL 03 — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:05:58 +0000

They need to leave the children out of it. It better not be streaming in my school.

By: Tel

Tel — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 00:53:36 +0000

I would say Paul Falkowski is more than welcome to put his own private money into a political campaign if that’s what he wishes to do. He should of course rightly disclose where the funding of this campaign is coming from (as with any political contribution).

I strongly suspect that Paul will discover that his fellow climate researchers are substantially more reluctant to hand over their pocket money as compared to handing over taxpayer’s money for political campaigns.

By: Gorified

Gorified — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:49:33 +0000

Two types of scientist:

1. A climate scientist: someone that studies climate.

2. A climate change scientist: someone that defines the fact that climate changes as being unnatural, by that definition they expect climate to be constant. Weather is anecdotal when not supporting AGW but 100% proof if it does. A climate change scientist can tie absolutely any scenario to climate change even when completely opposite weather events take place at the same time.