And still nothing from CBC.
They're gonna get creamed by that stampede of elephants in the room.
How long can they ignore this.

Kinda says something don't it.
Left the buggers speachless.

http://news.discovery.com/space/climategate-and-other-nonsense.html
How about listenning to the argument from the other side

Goldstein does it again, this time with a 'shout-out' to Kate.
Just a reminder: Goldstien and Coren are probably not the most popular guys with their peers. Bravo for going against the flow! They deserve some congrats. Coren suggests that his editor should hear from us also.

torontosun.com

How about some real science:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Falsification Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)

Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov

Summary

"In other words: Already the natural greenhouse eect is a myth beyond physical reality. The
CO2-greenhouse effect, however is a "mirage" [205]. The horror visions of a risen sea level,
melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences
of fictitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in the climate model
computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models,
because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse
gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, which are
not part of the academic education or even of the physics training. A good example are the
radiation transport calculations, which are probably not known by many. Another example
are the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify an effect which is
not marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently, the defenders of the CO2-greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to unreproducible ones. A theoretical physicist must complain about a lack of transparency here,
and he also has to complain about the style of the scientific discussion, where advocators of
the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are discrediting justified
arguments as a discussion of "questions of yesterday and the day before yesterday"25. In
exact sciences, in particular in theoretical physics, the discussion is never closed and is to
be continued ad infinitum, even if there are proofs of theorems available. Regardless of the
specific field of studies a minimal basic rule should be fulfilled in natural science, though,
even if the scientific fields are methodically as far apart as physics and meteorology: At least
among experts, the results and conclusions should be understandable or reproducible. And it
should be strictly distinguished between a theory and a model on the one hand, and between
a model and a scenario on the other hand, as clarified in the philosophy of science.
That means that if conclusions out of computer simulations are to be more than simple
speculations, then in addition to the examination of the numerical stability and the estimation
of the effects of the many vague input parameters, at least the simplifications of the physical original equations should be critically exposed. Not the critics have to estimate the effects of the approximation, but the scientists who do the computer simulations.
"Global warming is good. The net effect of a modest global warming is positive."
(Singer).26 In any case, it is extremely interesting to understand the dynamics and causes of the long-term fluctuations of the climates. However, it was not the purpose of this paper to
get into all aspects of the climate variability debate.
The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric
effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric
greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering
thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting
solution for economics and intergovernmental policy."

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"

Ovict
The "other side" has been getting all the attention for 20 years.
Then we learned a week ago Friday, they were all liars.
So Bugger off.

Cpac had a segment on this morning about the leaked emails,with a credible guest telling the truth about the scam,you have to get throught the Lizzie May nonsense to hear it. Was on the "this Week" program with Mark Sutcliffe(?),right name?

Ghost of ed...check out orvict's link. Dr.O'neil is getting whooped in the comments and getting dizzy in his spin.

I am setting this in front of you so you can destroy it. Check out the comments.

Now that the CBC has stuck its neck out by not covering what is perhaps the biggest story of the year it is time for someone in the federal cabinet to gi before a moe or podium and talk about the scandal. The CBC will then have to explain why they have hardly covered it since the story broke. This could well be the rathergate humiliation for the CBC and several other MSM hulks.

Lets go find some more.
My search was climate gate deniers.

We had a long discussion of the G&T paper here at SDA
on April 18, 2008, Hans. You might like to read from the
beginning of that web page.

When major media ignore this story, when none of the spin is getting any traction. This isn't just the story of the year. People are waking up.
They have been caught in a lie. What other lies are we fed.
Are you as angry as I am?
How can we push back?
climate gate has gone viral over the net. If we can keep this momentum we can go epidemic.
There is a dam that is bursting.
Honest information is the tool we can use to bring it down.
Search. Find out for your self. If you have been involved in the lies, maybe now is the time to speak up?

"Now that the CBC has stuck its neck out by not covering what is perhaps the biggest story of the year"

Remember when reporters provided their audience with news, not the other way around? - Jim Treacher

orvict - thanks for the links. I don't think that most hopychangie climate thumpers understand the economic fallout that such a insane 'plan' would visit on their households. Fred put up a post a few days ago entitled 'what would you cut' (in the budget) to cut the GH gazzes. The figures would slam all the bedwetters right in the pocketbook. If I know anything about left wing nuts it is that they never consider ever paying for any of their alarmist bedwetting scams themselves - they thought that 'big oil' would be paying for the AGW thingie and that they, the shriekers, would all get soft well paid jobs in the hopychangie industry. If every well paid gument worker is made aware that he/she will lose his/her padded pension and quite possibly the job they have and thus their houses; they will bail out like rats on a sinking Greenpeace ship.

Thanks for the peer review link - I have sent it to my Liberano M.P. to keep him up to date on this - that way he can't claim he didn't know anything about it.

Something to think about...
http://www.renewamerica.com/analyses/060402hutchison.htm

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/default.asp
Find out who we are up against.

Kate, anyone ever ask NRO why they accept advertising from the global warming scam enablers Nature Canada? Note their petition that they want you to sign and send to Harper.

What truly is alarming about this entire episode is how much our trust in science could be shaken. Science is supposed to be completely logical, no agenda, just absorption of facts, analysis of said facts, and theories based upon said analysis.

Anyone that distorts the scientific method is not truly a scientist. The black mark on the reputation of science is an absolute tragedy. From the cold fusion scam, to AGW, to many others.

If we do not make clear the consequences of the distortion of the scientific method, science is in fact no different from any religion. The idea of "no preconceived ideas" gets thrown out the window. Bias and agendas take over, and the entire human race suffers.

Thanks for the tip Vit.

Note this is the updated paper dated Jan 6, 2009.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"