Climategate: McIntyre and the ‘Divergence Problem’

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Mnphats:

You seem to be a pretty level headed guy albeit liberal.

But do you really believe Exxon is behind this? Whats funny is the people that don't believe in GW are labeled conspiracy nuts.

Uhhh... it's actually in Exxon's 2008 "Corporate Citizenship Report" if you care to read it.

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/community_contributions_report_public.aspx

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/community_contributions_report.aspx

Exxon stopped funding the "Marshall Institute" only last year, and now include such joke anti-global warming groups as "The Smithsonian Astrophysics Observatory" (which is a wonderfully entertaining name) to the tune of $76,106.

I assume they made a mistake in including this link to their direct funding of global warming deniers.

Another example was the report "Lessons & Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual?" which was published by the George Marshall Institute. Jeff Nesmith of Cox News Service revealed that the study was funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

It's not really a "conspiracy theory" when it's in black and white in their corporate reports. Exxon funds global warming deniers to try to confuse the issue in the public's mind, to masquerade as if there's actual debate and to prevent any change.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Ricter:

It's a kind of Occam's Razor. What's simpler, a whole new conspiracy to profit off of a whole new industry based on bogus data fabricated by the world's scientists, or that current profits are protecting themselves?

Edit: besides, I've been around long enough I've heard this stuff before: tobacco/lung cancer, and sulfur/acid rain.

And CFC's -- don't forget those.

In fact, interestingly, one of the people who worked for the George Marshall Institute was Dr. Sally Baliunas -- a famous global warming denier (who unsurprisingly now works for the global warming denial center "Smithsonian Astrophysics Observatory") and she wrote about CFC's.

Guess what she wrote back then about CFC's? Let me know if any of this sounds familiar:

"Scientific findings do not support an immediate ban on CFC's. Both global and arctic measurements point to natural factors as the main cause of recent ozone fluctuations. Ozone levels change primarily as a result of natural factors, such as ultraviolet output of the sun..."

 

[Mnphats]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Uhhh... it's actually in Exxon's 2008 "Corporate Citizenship Report" if you care to read it.

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/community_contributions_report_public.aspx

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/community_contributions_report.aspx

Exxon stopped funding the "Marshall Institute" only last year, and now include such joke anti-global warming groups as "The Smithsonian Astrophysics Observatory" (which is a wonderfully entertaining name) to the tune of $76,106.

I assume they made a mistake in including this link to their direct funding of global warming deniers.

Another example was the report "Lessons & Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual?" which was published by the George Marshall Institute. Jeff Nesmith of Cox News Service revealed that the study was funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

It's not really a "conspiracy theory" when it's in black and white in their corporate reports. Exxon funds global warming deniers to try to confuse the issue in the public's mind, to masquerade as if there's actual debate and to prevent any change.

A mere 76,000?

Wow, shocking.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Mnphats:

A mere 76,000?

Wow, shocking.

Actually their environmental contributions listed on the report total $9 million, but clearly that doesn't include support that they've attempted to hide through the API and other front organizations.

It just makes sense, though, and I imagine you would agree that it's common sense that a corporation would attempt to protect its bottom line at any and all costs.

 

[Arnie]

Quote from Ricter:

Something has to be reworked, on the calculations side, because in spite of all that, the world's ice is still melting. Like I said, it was once demonstrated mathematically that bumblebees cannot fly.

So what? Do you really believe that the glaciers and ice caps are static? Of course they ebb and flow. If there is one word that describes climate, it's "change". There is no need to get worked up over something that occurs naturally.

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Actually their environmental contributions listed on the report total $9 million, but clearly that doesn't include support that they've attempted to hide through the API and other front organizations.

It just makes sense, though, and I imagine you would agree that it's common sense that a corporation would attempt to protect its bottom line at any and all costs.

This is the lamest excuse the MMGW folks have going. The hoaxsters got caught perpetrating the fraud and they blame Exxon for it. It is always someone else's fault with liberals.

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from Ricter:

Something has to be reworked, on the calculations side, because in spite of all that, the world's ice is still melting. Like I said, it was once demonstrated mathematically that bumblebees cannot fly.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iOEB1v8qRQaMGu_fAIW_eSvKSGyw

"GENEVA — A surge in sunshine more than 60 years ago helped Swiss mountain glaciers melt faster than today, even though warmer average temperatures are being recorded now, Swiss researchers said Monday.

Their study into the impact of solar radiation on Alpine glaciers made the "surprising discovery" that in the 1940s, and especially summer 1947, the ice floes lost the most ice since measurements begin 95 years ago, according to Zurich's Federal Institute of Technology (ETHZ)."




Hey genius, the Swiss glaciers were melting faster when it was colder. That blows your whole argument.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from drjekyllus:

Hey genius, the Swiss glaciers were melting faster when it was colder. That blows your whole argument. [/B]

No, it doesn't.

And I'm not sure how it would.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Arnie:

So what? Do you really believe that the glaciers and ice caps are static? Of course they ebb and flow. If there is one word that describes climate, it's "change". There is no need to get worked up over something that occurs naturally.

"It appears that ozone levels in the arctic experienced wide variations before the buildup of CFC's in the atmosphere." -- Dr. Sallie Baliunas

Sound familiar?

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from bigdavediode:

No, it doesn't.

And I'm not sure how it would.

Ummmm, yes it does.