Phil Jones & Climate Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
Date sort Score sort
Boyd

Boyd

Recipient of The Biff Twang
10 Years
Mar 14, 2009
9,163
18
271
MI
Interesting that there only seems to be 1 of the major news agencies in the states reporting on this. I had to go to england for double, triple verification.

The first link is where I popped in Phil Jones into google and got all the news stories.... Haven't seen them on CNN, Msnbc, abc etc. Haven't dug way deep but I've been busy reading articles about his revelations from the end of last week
smile.png
Read and decide for yourself!

http://news.google.com/news?oe=UTF-...=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQsQQwAA

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010...admits-uks-climate-scientist/?test=latestnews
 
Quote:
Thanks for your comments girly, but u must not have read any of the links... Phil jones....... hm....... here's a snippet on why this is such a big issue right now, and why there's now an international investigation into him, and the data tampering that effected how the worlds governments and country's look at this... how the Freedom of Information acts were ignored, and how it finally took hackers breaking into their computers and publishing the raw data and emails in the CRU servers to bring about this whole issue.


The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.

Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, made a number of eye-popping statements to the BBC's climate reporter on Sunday. Data from CRU, where Jones was the chief scientist, is key evidence behind the claim that the growth of cities (which are warmer than countryside) isn't a factor in global warming and was cited by the U.N.'s climate science body to bolster statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.
 
It doesn't discredit the data gathered all over the world. I'm just not buying it. I have worked alongside several glaciologists with obvious evidence of c.c.

I just don't understand why there are so many "deniers" in the US. I mean- how can you honestly believe that polluting is a good thing . That burning toxic chemicals and releasing them into the atmosphere and water is good for the planet.
smack.gif
What is the point of denying?

Everybody is sooo worried about leaving future generations with debt. How about leaving them with a toxic wasteland?
 
Please allow me my thoughts. If the snow that y'all just got down South is CC then yes there is CC. However is it unusual and bazarre? Only to us as we live here and now. Can you say that it never happened in the history of the earth? Unless you can find someone who lived back then I don't think you can. Can man affect the climate? Just check the history of the UK when people literally died due to smoke pushed into the atmosphere over England that blocked out the sun for however long it was.
I have been to Isreal twice and believe me if you don't think deforestation can affect things guess again. You won't find the forests that I believe were there when David sheperded sheep.

So what can peons like you and me do? Recycle, reuse, what ever else you can think of and hope for the best. No one country is going to save the planet all by itself. However when all is said and done I'd rather be able to say I did my best. Be willing to do with less so others may have. Would you be willing to have a lesser paying job if it meant that the lake wouldn't be used as a dumping ground? Have one less truck or car or tv or sweater or whatever.

For those who believe the book of Revelations the point is moot. We know what the future hold for "this" earth and I for one want to be there to live to see the "new" one. I will not be desrtacted by this so called crisis. Watch and pray, watch and pray.
 
It doesn't discredit the data gathered all over the world.

When you look at how that world data was gathered, it discredits itself.

"the data showed that 49 of the Chinese meteorological stations had no histories of their location or other details. These mysterious stations included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had certainly been moved during the study period, perhaps invalidating their data.

Keenan told the Guardian: "The worst case was a station that moved five times over a distance of 41 kilometres"; hence, for those stations, the claim made in the paper that "there were 'few if any changes' to locations is a fabrication". (The full statement in the original 1990 Nature paper reads: "The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times.") Keenan demanded that Jones retract his claims about the Chinese data."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud

Not believing the global warming hysteria DOES NOT make one "pro-pollution" by the way.​
 
Last edited:
Quote:
When you look at how that world data was gathered, it discredits itself.

"the data showed that 49 of the Chinese meteorological stations had no histories of their location or other details. These mysterious stations included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had certainly been moved during the study period, perhaps invalidating their data.

Keenan told the Guardian: "The worst case was a station that moved five times over a distance of 41 kilometres"; hence, for those stations, the claim made in the paper that "there were 'few if any changes' to locations is a fabrication". (The full statement in the original 1990 Nature paper reads: "The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times.") Keenan demanded that Jones retract his claims about the Chinese data."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud

Not believing the global warming hysteria DOES NOT make one "pro-pollution" by the way.

I agree...
 
Quote:
When you look at how that world data was gathered, it discredits itself.

"the data showed that 49 of the Chinese meteorological stations had no histories of their location or other details. These mysterious stations included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had certainly been moved during the study period, perhaps invalidating their data.

Keenan told the Guardian: "The worst case was a station that moved five times over a distance of 41 kilometres"; hence, for those stations, the claim made in the paper that "there were 'few if any changes' to locations is a fabrication". (The full statement in the original 1990 Nature paper reads: "The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times.") Keenan demanded that Jones retract his claims about the Chinese data."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud

Not believing the global warming hysteria DOES NOT make one "pro-pollution" by the way.

I agree...

thumbsup.gif
 
listen, no sense in crying over spilled milk. We ALL know the world is coming to an end in 2012. DUH, didn't you all see the movie........sigh people!

oh, and i do believe in global damage wether its warming, ice age, el nino, nina or just plain ol what ever! Now go spray some hairspray so we can get a better sunburn with cancer................
tongue.png


disclaimer*** i am sick on meds, do not take me serouisly!! ON MEDS*****
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

serama hen
    • Like
WAYNE NJ MAN LEGALIZES CHICKENS IS THERE ANYONE IN PATERSON
Replies
2
Views
6K
serama hen
serama hen

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom