منتشرشده در خرید vpn ویندوز

hack“>



برای کمک به پشتیبانی از انکار آب و هوا هفته انکار
قابل اعتماد و متخصص

منکران آب و هوا در مورد مجموعه نامه های الکترونیکی مسروقه یکی از مراکز مهم آب و هوایی جهان ، یعنی Universtiy of East Anglia ، سر و صدای زیادی به پا کرده اند.
چرخشی که آنها مطرح می کنند این است که ایمیل ها آنچه را که همیشه به آن مشکوک بوده اند را آشکار می کند ، توطئه ای شیطانی جهانی.

  

لینک دانلود

تگ ها:

45 پاسخ به “کیسه های آب و هوایی Hack Attack قسمت 1”

  1. Another funny thing is that the wolf pack attackers who attacked Michael E. Mann, now are apologizing, admitting they were wrong.
    Canadian neo libertarian think tank, Frontier Centre for Public Policy, have now apologized to Michael E. Mann:

    http://gregladen.com/blog/2019/06/07/michael-mann-wins/

    Climategate WAS a manufactured "controversy" by fossil fuel interests and global warming denialists – timed specifically to disrupt the 2009 and 2011 climate talks and the Cap and Trade bill.

    The scientific consensus has only become stronger as the evidence for global warming from various sources has mounted.

    Nine, yes, thats 9, investigations ALL cleared the scientists + the data has been replicated after + ALL science after has confirmed the warming trend. Even skeptics John Christy and Roy Spencers satellite data shows a similar warming trend during the “climategate” period.

    “What was the evidence for this vast conspiracy?

    A lot of it rested on, you guessed it, hacked emails. The credulousness of all too many journalists about the supposed misconduct revealed by “Climategate,” a pseudo-scandal that relied on selective, out-of-context quotes from emails at a British university, prefigured the disastrous media handling of hacked Democratic emails in 2016. (All we learned from those emails was that scientists are people — occasionally snappish, and given to talking in professional shorthand that hostile outsiders can willfully misinterpret.

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/12/climategate-timeline-wikileaks-hacking-russia-trump/

    All the CRU data have been replicated:

    "The Independent Climate Change Email Review went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results. This means not only was CRU not hiding anything, but it had nothing to hide. Though CRU neglected to provide an exact list of temperature stations, it could not have hid or tampered with data."

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-monitoring/land-and-atmosphere/surface-station-records

    Anyone can now view for themselves the raw data that was at the centre of the “climategate scandal".

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-monitoring/land-and-atmosphere/surface-station-records

    https://qr.ae/TUttKA

  3. The case for alarming global warming is dogma for those who are trying to push it on the public.  You can't question it, because if you do, it quickly falls apart.  Neither greenman3610 nor any of his political/journalistic/scientific allies are willing to debate this issue on the basis of fact.  They must wholly control the dialogue or again, the dogma falls apart like the house of cards that it is.  We see evidence of this attempt to control the dialogue in the emails of climategate and also in the media (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/7/bbc-staff-ordered-stop-giving-equal-air-time-clima/).  The ad hominem attack that forms the basis of greenman3610's blog and also of the arguments of his allies is the mark of a desperate attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees.  Fortunately, many of us understand this tactic, so your beavis and butthead routine and the title of your blog itself has no effect.  Pathetic…

  5. "IPCC now simply ignores"
    proving that you get your information from Fox News and Glenn Beck, rather than actually reading the report, which not only includes Mann's hockey stick, but a dozen other corroborating studies.
    AR4, chapter 6, page 467, figure 6.10, see "MBH 1999" aka the hockey stick. You can thank me for helping you not make a fool of yourself with this bogus talking point anymore.

  6. How do you feel about the Hockey Stick Graph? Do you understand statisitics well enough to follow McKitrick's thorough and unequivocal debunking of it? You have to be smarter and harder working than the average bear to suss out the serious BS being promulgated here and by the agenda driven IPCC. It's about a lot more than climate.

  7. The Hockey Stick Graph? You're hanging your hat on the Hockey Stick Graph, that even the IPCC now simply ignores as it has been thoroughly and decisively discredited by McKitrick et al? Who said "anus"? Holy s**t!

  8. Try to keep an open mind. To find out what the so-called consensus consists of go to triple wattsupwiththat and search "consensus". There r so many real threats to humanity-the surveillance state, the artificial intelligence "singularity",nanoparticles in food,bankster domination of our $'s + govts,chemical/particulate pollution of air+water,pharmacological destruction of young peoples minds,militarization of police forces. All real dangers, all either current except AI,which is close.

  9. I see nothing in this video that conclusively disproves the denialists position, notwithstanding the warmist-captured orgs AMS' and Nature Magazine's unsubstantiated denials of the denialists propositions. Rather Trenberth seems to be trying to force the data to fit his theory rather than adjust his theory when observational data contradicts it. That is a definition of religion.

  11. all data and code is available on line, not that I believe for a second you are qualified to interpret it.
    "climategate" is the "weapons of mass destruction" of the denialist movement. Lots of noise about it, nothing there on actual inspection.

  12. LOL, the "conservative" magazine economist? The economist has been carrying the water for alarmist for years. No surprise there. The statement stands. The "monitoring" needs to understand…blah blah blah. Monitoring has no conscience. It's just data, before it is run through Hanson's, "make everything look higher" software code.

  13. Empirical laws relate to a few math equations found to be universal in physics and chemistry. There are none that are absolute and Newtons laws can be corrected with quantum equations for speeds above 25,000mph. Quantum equations are not however empirical laws. Without these corrections you would not have any satellite communications. If you want to believe only science that is empirical is acceptable then get off the net because it doesn't exist without these.

  14. I am so sick of hearing about climate gate. When that broke (the second time which was the first i heard about it) it literally took me all of 10 minutes to read the emails in question in their entirety and see there was nothing nefarious at all about them.

    You literally have to be the absolute most stupid brand of person to have fallen for it.

  15. What evidence?

    All the empirical evidence I can find points to gross over-estimates in the feedback in temperature of the climate. That is the only important factor, as without strong positive feedback AGW is not dangerous – not CAGW.

    Even if there were a consensus, which with 30,000 scientists signing dissent despite the harm to careers, despite consensus being "all saying what no one would say", science is not consensus. Science is empirical evidence. There is none for CAGW that I can find.

  16. This may be a crazy idea, but perhaps you could spend a little time on Google Scholar finding published research on the topic. You could also use the references and bibliographies in books and published articles to track down further information. But, perhaps you simply don't have time or are disinclined to invest any effort in determining if your preconceived notions that human-induced climate change is "religion," so just open another beer and watch Hannity.

  18. if you had the slightest bit of science background, you would know how lame your baseless, uncited, unsupportable, appeal to emotion claims are.
    I you know something that the National Academy does not know, publish it.
    Otherwise, give some evidence that you are not just another ignorant, arm waving troll.

  19. Just one more question you might consider – might even be worth a video. If the science is so certain, if the debate is over and the time for action (you know, the condemning foreigners to grinding poverty and early death so Gore can keep hiring private jets and Obama can take a different plane than Michelle on holiday) is now, then why have the warmists been so dishonest? Why have they lied about almost every aspect? Why have they lied even about the debate itself, and about their opponents?

  20. Oh, and still no response to the known evidence for the MWP. Considering the fact that the leaked CRU emails showed a conspiracy to deliberately distort the temperature record to remove this I would have thought you would want to address it.

  21. I have read much around this. Given the gross factual errors already proven in the IPCC reports, and given the lack of credibility, experience and credentials of its authors, given that the reports are rewritten at the demands of politicians and NGOs, given that they rely on environmentalist propaganda … look, you get the idea, they are not very good … why on Earth would anyone waste their time reading IPCC reports?

  22. I already said I did not ask anyone knowledgeable, having implied the ones I asked were warmist.

    However, please answer the question. Don't just link to open propaganda.

    Let me simplify it for you. There are many problems in your vaunted 150 years of research, far beyond the scope of 500 characters. The thing completely lacking is evidence that temperature has strong positive feedback. Without this, there is no danger. So what is the empirical evidence for strong positive feedback?

  23. I assume you never asked anyone knowledgable, as I have, or spent thousands of hours researching, as I have.
    Your question is like asking for the empirical evidence that cigarettes cause health problems. It is spread out over thousands of papers, and 150 years of scientific inquiry.
    I've made a hundred videos, watch em. go to the linked files and read them. read the IPCC, at least chapter 6.
    start here.
    watch?v=OmpiuuBy-4s
    watch?v=yLYqzIhhT6o
    then you can come back, and ask nicely.

  24. Greenman

    I'd like to ask you the same question I have asked almost every member of your religion for the last three years. It is the only question that actually matters (as you would know if you had ever trained in any real science). Not one of them has been able to answer. I have also tried to find a answer for myself, unsuccessfully.

    What is the empirical evidence that human activity is likely to cause dangerous climate change?

  25. So your evidence is more YouTube videos? How about the information I got from a friend who was born in Greenland and has a degree in archaeology? The fact that there are farming communities in areas that are now in permafrost. How about the broad historical evidence? How about recent evidence from the Antarctic?

  26. If he had used as much work into real analysis as subtle dishonesty about the CRU leak this he might have had an interesting video.

    For example he is clever to note that Trenbarth did not admit he doubted climate change when saying it was a travesty not to understand the cooling. However of course that is the whole point. Trenbarth has no doubts despite the fact he admits he has no idea why the climate is behaving as he does. That itself is the scandal!

  32. @testingsthlm the most reliable source of temp readings is thermometers… before thermometers you have to use other data from ice cores, tree rings, etc. Tree ring data for the time frame in which we have had thermometers tracks closely with the thermometer data except in the last few decades (probably due to other environmental factors) this doesn't mean it wasn't warmer–we still have the thermometer data–it just means that the divergence in tree rings must be accounted for. That's it.

  33. @testingsthlm
    stay tuned for the next video, which will be out in a week or so. I've been carefully studying this issue so as to make it as clear as possible.
    answer is, no data were altered or destroyed, and the deniers are once again lying to you.

  34. The so-called "climategate" emails were the deniers smoking gun that proved without doubt that all scientists are taking part in a major left-wing-green-environmental-tree-hugging conspiracy?
    Unbelievable….

  36. @SuperRmck It's a bit hard to sound impartial when all the evidence and the scientific consensus is on one side, and the other side only has lies, propoganda and Glenn Beck. How impartial can you be? Should we also be impartial about the debate of faeries in the garden?

  42. @smartalek65 " It proves the science behind your position weak"

    You making a mountain out of a molehill doesn't overturn the scientific consensus on man's contributions to global warming. Even if these scientists were caught straight-up lying, that wouldn't overturn it either. Evidence is evidence. You just have to not be a wingnut to see it.

  44. The voice in the video gives that fake calm and reasonable tone. "Hi I'm reasonable. I'm not foolish. These are the facts because I showed a chart and sourced NASA. Anyone who doubts man-made climate change is a NAZI. The govt. loves you." Lol!

  45. These GW cult members will say anything. Mojib Latif 1 of the authors of the IPCC says that temperatures may cool for the next 20 yrs, but that doesn't mean there isn't CO2 driven GW. What's the solution? More taxes of course. They spend billions on wars, but for GW we need to pay the govt. more money. These greenman videos are retarded & insulting to anyone who has a mind of their own. He references a bunch of corrupt special interest funded organizations as the be all end all of proof.

نظرات بسته شده اند.