climatologist mann cleared of misconduct charges - Page 7

On July 06 2010 10:31 MadVillain wrote:


Bhaha get owned Gregsen.

It is obvious from your posts that you don't understand basic scientific principals. Humans release of billions upon billions of tons of CO2 (as well as other greenhouse gases, CO2 is luckily less potent then methan or nitrous oxide for example) has had an obvious measurable effect on global temperatures. This HAS been 'proven' (i don't use the word proven without quotes because in science you can't really prove something 100% only disprove of it) through 1000s of peer reviewed papers. I don't know what else I can tell you but that the research has been done and it all points unequivocally towards human made global warming.

Now you claim we should spend more time on 'saving animals from extinction', but do you realize that global warming is going to cause more animals to go extinct than anything humans have done before?

With the cause for global warming well established, its obvious that renewable energy technologies are the answer to the problem. If you're so uneducated about a subject don't try to talk about it.

On July 06 2010 10:39 MadVillain wrote:
The 'interests' of the IPCC? What exactly are the 'interests' of the IPCC? This leads me to believe that you are buying into some sort of conspiracy theroy, and people who believe that sort of unsubstantiated garbage tend to ignore logic, and the simple fact of the matter.

While you link a youtube video I link this: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

On July 06 2010 11:11 Romantic wrote:
LMAO Gregsen literally got his arguments from a bad documentary on Youtube.

On July 06 2010 11:20 Romantic wrote:
Bye Gregson! Have a nice day!

On July 06 2010 10:24 Gregsen wrote:
Zch, this is not the source I referred to. Your link is guiding to the Max Planck Institute in Jena, I am referring to the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg. Those are two entirely different Institutes, difference being that the Institute in Hamburg isn't serving the interests of IPCC. There are a lot of Max-Planck-Institutes in Germany (insert smug little winky-face here).

Are you aware that there has been a medieval warming period between 800 and 1450, warmer than the one we are facing today, followed by a "mini iceage" with temperatures below average between 1450 and 1850? This is where all the graphs are starting, and as you can see, there's a good reason for it.

you really need to keep on searching for new information.

Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg
In addition to the findings about the complex interplay between atmosphere and ocean, the current climate models from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology also include new findings about the effects of aerosols and the influence of the earth's carbon cycle. The results confirm speculations over recent years that humans are having a large and unprecedented influence on the climate and are fuelling global warming.

On July 05 2010 17:38 love1another wrote:

You're using yearly measurements. If you use the daily measurements, your confidence interval shrinks by a factor of sqrt(~365) and it is then statistically significant.

On July 05 2010 12:40 zeppelin wrote:


i would love to see them, especially if they all missed the point you think they're making as embarrassingly as that sciencedaily link you provided

On July 06 2010 08:58 zeppelin wrote:
here's some more data maybe it will be helpful
+ Show Spoiler +

On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.

2. I hope you understand on a basic level how and economy works. Producing such technologies requires huge industrial investment, that includes money, materials, and people. Producing these technologies gives jobs and increases wealth to many people (not just some fictional tyrant who is 'king of wind power'

On July 06 2010 12:46 zeppelin wrote:


what? how does that make any logical sense at all?

a thought experiment:
suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer
suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder

in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas)

how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades

These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion.
-Robert Anton Wilson

On July 09 2010 14:45 SnK-Arcbound wrote:

What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever?

Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to?

What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures.

On July 09 2010 14:45 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report.