Did you read anything following the sentance you quoted?

I did in fact "prove" you wrong.

And your "proofs" are limited to childish name calling that are not worth a response.

Rant all you want, you are beneath notice.

Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. My point was that you choose to read filtered information and make your opinions based on others opinions. I read the actual reports, found errors long before I knew others had found them and more and posted them as I discussed the issue. My issue is not with the person you mentioned but the fact that anyone can write about a topic and until it is challenged, the truth remains hidden. People listed as dead that are still alive until it is refuted. A law firm in NY made all kinds of political hit pieces on their enemies using Wiki some of them remain there years after being proven wrong. This is why I don't trust Wiki, it is good to get you in the ball park but I rarely rely on it as trusted information unless I have verified it through more than one independent source. I find that bringing up this person is a distraction rather than the truth. A little about me. I like to keep busy and sleep about 4 hours a day I write a few books a week. I run three businesses; I work for DHS as a contract counterterrorism consultant. In my spare time I have been studying astrophysics which is why the errors in the IPCC reports were so glaring to me. Until I read the reports I had no real opinion on the topic. The data did not jibe with the data I have been studying since the late 60's. The fact that you believe the AGW crap is your business, you defending them is sad but understandable because you are a layman on the subject. Did you know that the Atlantic conveyer was discovered by a paleo bug scientist in the late 70's and the climate scientists debunked and ignored it for 30 years? Their argument was that the sciences was not a climate scientist. Now it is fully accepted by them as if they discovered it. That scientist mapped out the weather more accurately than the climate scientists have with their models, his findings are still not acknowledged by the climate people because they can't make it fit in their climate models and blows AGW out of the water. He has thousands of years of data to back him up while the climate people have 20 years of data. I am inclined to go with the guy with peer revied data that was published long before the climate change people came along.

One more thing, the documents/ e-mails posted from East Anglia were not hacked from an outside source. They were sent to the BBC from someone on the inside, the person waited a month for the BBC to report it and then the person posted it on the web. The person knew that the information was explosive and wanted the world to know what was going on. The crap that is AGW is a hoax, the IPCC reports are trash, and each week we are learing more and more how the information is being adjusted to keep the lie alive. As I have posted many times over the last few years is that the planet is getting warmer and has been getting warmer for thousands of years. THis has been documeted and peer reviewed and accepted for 40 years, our water is boiling away as you read this, and man has nothing to do with it, since man has nothing to do with it man has no way to stop it. To give you an example of the planets getting warmer look at this fact. In the late 60's man went to the moon. The temperature there got as high as 240 degrees, now the high temp is 250, that is a ten degree increase over the last 30 years, what keeps us cool on Earth is our weather system, do you think that the ten degrees are only warming the Moon? Why then is Mars getting warmer? Are we putting CO2 into Mars? Oh wait, the atmosphere on Mars is almost all CO2, why is the heat not trapped there? The warmth of the Sun has not expanded enough to dramatically warm that planet yet because it is farther from the Sun, but as the Sun expands it is starting to warm up the planet, all planets and moons are getting warmer at the same rate. Ignore the climate crap on Earth and look at the whole system. That was the thing that got me on the climate crap. For the IPCC reports to be right then the space science of the last 40 years is wrong. No one has refuted the space science only Earth science. That was what makes the IPCC reports wrong, they ignore the Sun and what it does. We see that a lack of Sun spots has brought colder weather. This has happened before, 1940's was real cold while the 1930's had record high temps. We had record high temps in the 80's and it peaked in the 90's and now it is getting colder, documented to have gotten colder over the last decade. Ignore the documeted data and embrace the IPCC reports if you want but don't be surprised when you finally look at the data and see the cycle.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

The basis of this argument is that the sun must be causing global warming and in fact, warming throughout the solar system. There are several flaws in this line of thought. Firstly, the characterisation that the whole solar system is warming is erroneous. Around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling (Young 2001).

Secondly, the theory that a brightening sun is causing global warming falls apart when you consider the sun has shown little to no trend since the 1950s. A variety of independent measurements of solar activity including satellite data, sunspot numbers, UV levels and solar magnetograms all paint a consistent picture. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions.

That begs the question - what is causing warming on other planets? With the exception of Pluto, climate change on other planets are fairly understood:

• Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo. Global dust storms increase the surface albedo by settling brighter dust on dark surfaces. Higher albedo leads to more sunlight being reflected which has a cooling effect. Snapshots of Mars' surface in 1977 and 1999 find that the surface was brighter in 1977 and darker in 1999. However, this doesn't necessarily point to a long term warming trend - the 1977 snapshot was made shortly after a global dust storm while the 1999 snapshot occured before a dust storm. Consequently, there is little empirical evidence that long term global warming on Mars is occuring (Richardson 2007). More on Mars...
  
• Neptune's orbit is 164 years so observations (1950 to present day) span less than a third of a Neptunian year. Climate modelling of Neptune suggests its brightening is a seasonal response (Sromovsky 2003). Eg - Neptune's southern hemisphere is heading into summer. More on Neptune...
  
• Neptune's largest moon, Triton, has warmed since the Voyager space probe visited it in 1989. The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon's southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight (Elliot 1998).
  
• Jupiter's storms are fueled by the planet's own internal heat (sunlight is 4% the level of solar energy at Earth). When several storms merge into one large storm (eg - Red Spot Jr), the planet loses its ability to mix heat, causing warming at the equator and cooling at the poles (Marcus 2006). More on Jupiter...
  
• Pluto's warming is not clearly understood. Pluto's orbit is much more elliptical than that of the other planets, and its rotational axis is tipped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes. As Pluto's orbit is equivalent to 248 Earth years and observed warming spans only 14 years, it is likely this is a seasonal response (Sromovsky 2003).

I had not heard this. Can you provide any links that document your assertion?

I still fail to see any "smoking gun" come out of the thousands of emails that were hacked. To the best of my knowledge there are 5 or so complaints based on a sentance or two out of a handful of emails all of which have reasonable explanations. But perhaps you have knowledge that I don't have. It reminds me of a commercial from long ago where an old woman asks "where's the beef". I've heard a lot of complaints but I've seen very little "beef".

At this point I've seen virtually nothing substantive but I do know there are at least two investigations going on. I'm sure we'll all be interested in hearing the results.

I'm less interested in who as opposed to why they did it and what they thought it would accomplish. I don't particularly see why whether the source was internel or external specifically "proves" anything one way or the other. People do various things for many different reasons. I mean what meaning does the fact that Amy Bishop was an insider have to do with anything other than the fact that there's something seriously wrong with her.

 

I guess you read no farther than the quoted statement, as I clearly did or was being omnipotent in the rest of my response.

And you have yet to prove anything.  "You Say", and that is it.  You have provided NO PROOF, just a bunch of your opinion. 

As I said, once you attempt to provide your proof, I will refute it.

And childish name calling?  I have not called you any names that you have not demonstrated to be true by your juvenile taunts. 

Go ahead and give me another one of your classic "you are an asshole" comments.

As I said, and you just proved again:

 

Your argument or the argument of the idiots that you provided does not hold water. The warming is not understood because it would mean that the Sun is providing the hear detected. Look at NASA and the reason they needed to send the Pluto Express. Pluto has already had its closest approach to the Sun and is heading farther out. The reason for NASA to hurry is because a few years after Pluto Express passes the minor planet the atmosphere will freeze over, this mission is the last chance we will have of seeing the atmosphere in our lifetime, the next chance will be in about a hundred years when Pluto is expected to warm enough for the gases that make up the atmosphere to thaw and rise again. So either the scientists at NASA lied to get the money for a worthless mission or your buddy has climate change suck up Uranus.

If what is provided about Mars is true then the planet should be getting colder because the brightness of the dust would help reflect the Sun's heat off the planet as ice reflects heat off of our planet. Also, what drives he weather on Mars is the same thing that drives the weather on the other planets, convection. since Mars is a dead planet, the only source of heat for convection is the Sun. The dust storms are a result of the planets rotation and convection. The snapshots reffered to in the article seem to ignore the probes that were reporting daily temps for over a year. 7 probes 4 on the ground reported what they saw and the ranges in temp as 3 of them moved around the planet.

Just how many have an atmosphere? Other than the inner planets the only places we have gotten accurate data are places we sent probs to. Pluto is too far out to get more than basic information. The accurate data on Pluto will come with the Pluto Express in 2015.  BTW, as of today the space craft is exactly half way there. Would those six planets and moons be the ones we have sent probes to?

Jupiter is a baby star, it gives off more heat than it receives from the Sun. Why it was included in that reprort is a bit beyond me.

You also need to read more carefully and not let your bias get in the way. I never stated the Sun was getting brighter I wrote that the Sun is expanding. Getting larger, not brighter, I guess that is another way to obfuscate the message.

Times of London did an article, The BBC finally came clean and stated that they had the e-mails a month before it was posted on the web sent to them by a confidential source. The BBC is heavily invested in green tech crap for the pension fund. To release that information would seriously damage that fund. As to why it was released in the fist place. All you have in science is your reputation, once word got out that this was a hoax everyone involved would lose their job and who is going to hire them? My 'guess' is that someone was covering their ass. When he or she gets fired for the hoax they will be able to point to the release of the e-mails and say I tried to blow the whistle. Notice the people involved are already losing their jobs. If the information was so weak why resign? Who is Amy Bishop? Oh wait, that was the left wing nut job that supports Mr. Obama and global climate change. I remember now. Thanks.

 

Well I have to tip my hat to you.

The reason that I use Wiki and not the actual reports is because downloading the actual reports is a pain in the fucking ass, pardon my french.

How do you have the patience? So OK. I bit the bullet and started downloading. First I downloaded the AR4 Synthesis Report. 52 pages and they provide a link to down load the entire file, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf.

OK so far so good. Next the first of 3 "Working Group" reports. This time not so lucky. 996 pages consisting of at a minimum of 25 downloads. OMFG! I drew the line at the figures however, there are two download pages consisting of figures only. The first one is http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/suppl/Ch10/Ch10_indiv-maps.html and consists of 164 individual files. No fucking way I'm going to download that. The second one is http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis_figures.htm and and I can't even begine to count how many individual files are on that page.

So I guess I'll go through the effort of pasting the 26 downloads from just the Working Group 1 report into a single pdf and then I move on to WG2 and WG3.

So is there an easier way to do this or what?

You know it really isn't an absolute requirement to denigrate everyone that simply disagrees with you.

The source article that I referenced provided links to peer reviewed works that document every one of his claims. You however call him an idiot without providing a single source other than your bald assertions. You should try providing a bit of evidence with your assertions if you wish to be taken seriously.

Actually you said that the sun is increasing in some unspecified manner by 10% every 100 to 1000 years. However you never made a point using this so-called fact nor did you ever explain precisely what parameter of the sun is increasing by 10% every 100 to 1000 years. So now you're saying that you "wrote that the Sun is expanding", so am I safe in assuming that your claim is that the suns diameter is expanding by 10% every 100 to 1000 years? If so I'll see if I can verify that, however if it's some other parameter please let me know so I don't go on some wild goose chase.

I concur with that sentiment.  Keep it dear & abide by it.

Link?

Pot Kettle.

Kettle Pot.

You do not know much that your masters do not feed you, do you? Emails sent to BBC a month before Leak

Seems everryone has more knowledge than you do.  But then if you are only getting your information from Gavin Schmidt and Grant Foster, you do not know much so to do your "work for you", here is One of many Analysis of the Emails. There is even a book out on it now! Need an ISBN number?

That is because you have not looked.

It "proves" nothing, but it does show the difference between a "whistleblower" and a hacker.  But then as indicated earlier, you do not know what "prove" means.

Don't play his juvenile game.  he likes to call people names and then accuse them of doing the same.  He is just lazy and as I have demonstrated, ignorant of the subject.  He wont (or more likely can't) prove any of his allegations when challenged on them.

sorry but I read papers, I don't know how to post a link, I go online to blog and to research my books. CURRENT BOOK SILENT THUNDER AT amazon! Sorry but I just had to do that. LOL

I have one of my girl friends do my website, facebook and other computer stuff. Here is an idea why don't you do a wiki search or maybe go to the times and look it up. Or you can ignore what I wrote and continue marching.

Doc, I honestly think that if he posts a link that is his proof. In most cases people read the link and accept what is written, I spotted errors in one of the links he provided and refuted it. I would love to read his opinions and his reasons but I don't think he will let us in that deeply.