The Science is Settled: GW is Conspiracy/Fraud (1 Viewer)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You hippie. It's our Patriotic duty as Americans to waste resources.

"When the last tree falls Jesus will return"

 

[jon_mx]

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Amazing how raw data shows no warming trend, can end up showing a warming trend. I guess the data is not right, so the 'scientists' correct it. But us non-scientist are not smart enough to question it. I mean taking temperatures and plotting them are just way to complicated...

It is our patriotic duty to expose scam artists trying to shove some scheme that will ripoff all Americans thousands of dollars. I don't trust anything coming from the global warming alarmists. Until they open up their data and let skeptics review it, it is all highly suspect.

 

[Bonzai]

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Amazing how raw data shows no warming trend, can end up showing a warming trend. I guess the data is not right, so the 'scientists' correct it. But us non-scientist are not smart enough to question it. I mean taking temperatures and plotting them are just way to complicated...

It is our patriotic duty to expose scam artists trying to shove some scheme that will ripoff all Americans thousands of dollars. I don't trust anything coming from the global warming alarmists. Until they open up their data and let skeptics review it, it is all highly suspect.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It is our patriotic duty to expose scam artists trying to shove some scheme that will ripoff all Americans thousands of dollars. ...

Thousands? Where were you the past fifty years as corporate America (well sometimes America) and their political lackeys have ripped us off of tens of trillions of dollars? You somehow trust these same corporate interest telling you that Global Warming is a fraud? I guess you still believe that there were no studies showing that cigarettes were unsafe in that scientific community conspiracy?

 

[jon_mx]

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Amazing how raw data shows no warming trend, can end up showing a warming trend. I guess the data is not right, so the 'scientists' correct it. But us non-scientist are not smart enough to question it. I mean taking temperatures and plotting them are just way to complicated...

It is our patriotic duty to expose scam artists trying to shove some scheme that will ripoff all Americans thousands of dollars. I don't trust anything coming from the global warming alarmists. Until they open up their data and let skeptics review it, it is all highly suspect.

Yep, so crazy....here is another story with facts you will ignore further exposing the manipulation. So all we have are emails that cleary show they are manipulating data and data sets that clearly show there is no warming but the official manipulated graphs show a huge warming trend. Only a blind follower of the global warming faith would this all not raise some serious red flags.Skewed science

 

[jon_mx]

It is our patriotic duty to expose scam artists trying to shove some scheme that will ripoff all Americans thousands of dollars. ...

Thousands? Where were you the past fifty years as corporate America (well sometimes America) and their political lackeys have ripped us off of tens of trillions of dollars? You somehow trust these same corporate interest telling you that Global Warming is a fraud? I guess you still believe that there were no studies showing that cigarettes were unsafe in that scientific community conspiracy?

Well, I am talking about thousands for each family, which translates into trillions of dollars. Unfortunately for your argument, the phony data is on your side. It is your side pushing the lies.

 

[Phurfur]

It is our patriotic duty to expose scam artists trying to shove some scheme that will ripoff all Americans thousands of dollars. ...

Thousands? Where were you the past fifty years as corporate America (well sometimes America) and their political lackeys have ripped us off of tens of trillions of dollars? You somehow trust these same corporate interest telling you that Global Warming is a fraud? I guess you still believe that there were no studies showing that cigarettes were unsafe in that scientific community conspiracy?

Actually it is corporate America who is pushing this fraud. Look at what GE has to gain if this whole thing goes down. So who are you trusting on this one?

 

[jon_mx]

It is our patriotic duty to expose scam artists trying to shove some scheme that will ripoff all Americans thousands of dollars. ...

Thousands? Where were you the past fifty years as corporate America (well sometimes America) and their political lackeys have ripped us off of tens of trillions of dollars? You somehow trust these same corporate interest telling you that Global Warming is a fraud? I guess you still believe that there were no studies showing that cigarettes were unsafe in that scientific community conspiracy?

Actually it is corporate America who is pushing this fraud. Look at what GE has to gain if this whole thing goes down. So who are you trusting on this one?

This fraud was pushed by big government weenies long before corporations got involved. Now all these companies are seeing on they can profit off these stupid 'cap and trade' scam. Obama's buddies at GE are in line to profit huge at the expense of the American consumer.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It is our patriotic duty to expose scam artists trying to shove some scheme that will ripoff all Americans thousands of dollars. ...

Thousands? Where were you the past fifty years as corporate America (well sometimes America) and their political lackeys have ripped us off of tens of trillions of dollars? You somehow trust these same corporate interest telling you that Global Warming is a fraud? I guess you still believe that there were no studies showing that cigarettes were unsafe in that scientific community conspiracy?

Well, I am talking about thousands for each family, which translates into trillions of dollars. Unfortunately for your argument, the phony data is on your side. It is your side pushing the lies.

My side is that if we attack the issues of energy dependence and polluted air and water we can probably not worry about global warming as many, not all of the solutions to the first set of problems would address any real global warming issues. My side is that being frugal with energy and resources should not be considered shameful and unAmerican. My side doesn't worship at the altar of science, nor the altar of corporate greed.

 

[Phurfur]

It is our patriotic duty to expose scam artists trying to shove some scheme that will ripoff all Americans thousands of dollars. ...

Thousands? Where were you the past fifty years as corporate America (well sometimes America) and their political lackeys have ripped us off of tens of trillions of dollars? You somehow trust these same corporate interest telling you that Global Warming is a fraud? I guess you still believe that there were no studies showing that cigarettes were unsafe in that scientific community conspiracy?

Actually it is corporate America who is pushing this fraud. Look at what GE has to gain if this whole thing goes down. So who are you trusting on this one?

This fraud was pushed by big government weenies long before corporations got involved. Now all these companies are seeing on they can profit off these stupid 'cap and trade' scam. Obama's buddies at GE are in line to profit huge at the expense of the American consumer.

Correct, and look at how much money Al Gore has made off of this. I seems to me that too many Americans are incapable of independent thought. This is the real danger we face.

 

[Phurfur]

It is our patriotic duty to expose scam artists trying to shove some scheme that will ripoff all Americans thousands of dollars. ...

Thousands? Where were you the past fifty years as corporate America (well sometimes America) and their political lackeys have ripped us off of tens of trillions of dollars? You somehow trust these same corporate interest telling you that Global Warming is a fraud? I guess you still believe that there were no studies showing that cigarettes were unsafe in that scientific community conspiracy?

Well, I am talking about thousands for each family, which translates into trillions of dollars. Unfortunately for your argument, the phony data is on your side. It is your side pushing the lies.

My side is that if we attack the issues of energy dependence and polluted air and water we can probably not worry about global warming as many, not all of the solutions to the first set of problems would address any real global warming issues. My side is that being frugal with energy and resources should not be considered shameful and unAmerican. My side doesn't worship at the altar of science, nor the altar of corporate greed.

and how does "Cap and Trade" figure into all of this?

 

[jon_mx]

It is our patriotic duty to expose scam artists trying to shove some scheme that will ripoff all Americans thousands of dollars. ...

Thousands? Where were you the past fifty years as corporate America (well sometimes America) and their political lackeys have ripped us off of tens of trillions of dollars? You somehow trust these same corporate interest telling you that Global Warming is a fraud? I guess you still believe that there were no studies showing that cigarettes were unsafe in that scientific community conspiracy?

Well, I am talking about thousands for each family, which translates into trillions of dollars. Unfortunately for your argument, the phony data is on your side. It is your side pushing the lies.

My side is that if we attack the issues of energy dependence and polluted air and water we can probably not worry about global warming as many, not all of the solutions to the first set of problems would address any real global warming issues. My side is that being frugal with energy and resources should not be considered shameful and unAmerican. My side doesn't worship at the altar of science, nor the altar of corporate greed.

It is dubious to call something essential to life on our planet as pollution. It is also dubious to claim any high ground as energy independence since so much effort from the greenies is to oppose all efforts to cultivate our natural resources. Besides, when someone throws around 'corporate greed' in every post, you might as well be wearing a Karl Marx button.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Amazing how raw data shows no warming trend, can end up showing a warming trend. I guess the data is not right, so the 'scientists' correct it. But us non-scientist are not smart enough to question it. I mean taking temperatures and plotting them are just way to complicated...

Yea, we should just go ahead and keep polluting our rivers and oceans and paving over our wetlands while clear-cutting the remaining 2% of old-growth forests. What the hell, we geniuses will all be dead in a few decades anyway.

 

[Phase of the Game]

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Amazing how raw data shows no warming trend, can end up showing a warming trend. I guess the data is not right, so the 'scientists' correct it. But us non-scientist are not smart enough to question it. I mean taking temperatures and plotting them are just way to complicated...

Yea, we should just go ahead and keep polluting our rivers and oceans and paving over our wetlands while clear-cutting the remaining 2% of old-growth forests. What the hell, we geniuses will all be dead in a few decades anyway.

What does that have to do with the FACT the GW "scientists" got busted for making up data and showing that GW is a fabricated lie.

 

[tosberg34]

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Amazing how raw data shows no warming trend, can end up showing a warming trend. I guess the data is not right, so the 'scientists' correct it. But us non-scientist are not smart enough to question it. I mean taking temperatures and plotting them are just way to complicated...

Yea, we should just go ahead and keep polluting our rivers and oceans and paving over our wetlands while clear-cutting the remaining 2% of old-growth forests. What the hell, we geniuses will all be dead in a few decades anyway.

Listen, just because some of us don't believe in this fraud called GW doesn't mean we don't advocate being responsible as citizens/corporations. I get tired of the pro-GW alarmists accusing those of us skeptics of being "anti-science" and environmentally reckless. It's just not true. We all want a clean and healthy environment, we just differ on the way to go about it.

 

[Phase of the Game]

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Amazing how raw data shows no warming trend, can end up showing a warming trend. I guess the data is not right, so the 'scientists' correct it. But us non-scientist are not smart enough to question it. I mean taking temperatures and plotting them are just way to complicated...

Yea, we should just go ahead and keep polluting our rivers and oceans and paving over our wetlands while clear-cutting the remaining 2% of old-growth forests. What the hell, we geniuses will all be dead in a few decades anyway.

Listen, just because some of us don't believe in this fraud called GW doesn't mean we don't advocate being responsible as citizens/corporations. I get tired of the pro-GW alarmists accusing those of us skeptics of being "anti-science" and environmentally reckless. It's just not true. We all want a clean and healthy environment, we just differ on the way to go about it.

 

[3C's]

What the hell, we geniuses will all be dead in a few decades anyway.

I figure I've got 2 decades left. Three at the most. I'll be ok.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...you might as well be wearing a Karl Marx button.

Karl Marx hated guys like me because we advocate "throwing crumbs" to the working class. He called this "buying off the revolution".

 

[Phase of the Game]

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Amazing how raw data shows no warming trend, can end up showing a warming trend. I guess the data is not right, so the 'scientists' correct it. But us non-scientist are not smart enough to question it. I mean taking temperatures and plotting them are just way to complicated...

Yea, we should just go ahead and keep polluting our rivers and oceans and paving over our wetlands while clear-cutting the remaining 2% of old-growth forests. What the hell, we geniuses will all be dead in a few decades anyway.

What does that have to do with the FACT the GW "scientists" got busted for making up data and showing that GW is a fabricated lie.

You have 2 "facts" there. Somehow I don't think that the second is supported by the first.

Of course you don't and that's ok. We all know the GW supporters are

 

[Phurfur]

Why do so many people want the theory of GW to be true? I know most of the people leading this push are in it for the money, what about the rest of you? Is it so important that GW is true that you ignore facts that it is not? Do you realize that in the 70's they were predicting the beginning of an Ice Age? 20,000 years ago much of North America was covered by 2 miles of ice. Who caused the warm up back then?

I think it is the fact that cleaning up the environment is not happening fast enough for some people. We have come along way and are continuing to make progress. It took us centuries to pollute the earth you cannot try to clean it up in a decade.

Who remembers when the Cuyahoga River caught fire?

 

[Bonzai]

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Amazing how raw data shows no warming trend, can end up showing a warming trend. I guess the data is not right, so the 'scientists' correct it. But us non-scientist are not smart enough to question it. I mean taking temperatures and plotting them are just way to complicated...

It is our patriotic duty to expose scam artists trying to shove some scheme that will ripoff all Americans thousands of dollars. I don't trust anything coming from the global warming alarmists. Until they open up their data and let skeptics review it, it is all highly suspect.

Yep, so crazy....here is another story with facts you will ignore further exposing the manipulation. So all we have are emails that cleary show they are manipulating data and data sets that clearly show there is no warming but the official manipulated graphs show a huge warming trend. Only a blind follower of the global warming faith would this all not raise some serious red flags.Skewed science

It's pretty wacky to think that the vast majority of climatologist out there are "activists" scheming to fool the public into believing global warming. I don't have the time to do all the experiments myself, so I tend to go with the experts. Does that open me up to being fooled by them? I suppose so, but given the choices of (a) doing the science myself, (b) taking the scientists' word for it, or (c ) thinking that climatologists are out to get me, I feel pretty good about taking their word for it.

 

[StrikeS2k]

It's pretty wacky to think that the vast majority of climatologist out there are "activists" scheming to fool the public into believing global warming. I don't have the time to do all the experiments myself, so I tend to go with the experts. Does that open me up to being fooled by them? I suppose so, but given the choices of (a) doing the science myself, (b) taking the scientists' word for it, or (c ) thinking that climatologists are out to get me, I feel pretty good about taking their word for it.

There is no proof that the "vast majority" believe in AGW. Just because Al Gore tells you something doesn't make it true.

 

[Bonzai]

It's pretty wacky to think that the vast majority of climatologist out there are "activists" scheming to fool the public into believing global warming. I don't have the time to do all the experiments myself, so I tend to go with the experts. Does that open me up to being fooled by them? I suppose so, but given the choices of (a) doing the science myself, (b) taking the scientists' word for it, or (c ) thinking that climatologists are out to get me, I feel pretty good about taking their word for it.

There is no proof that the "vast majority" believe in AGW. Just because Al Gore tells you something doesn't make it true.

OK

 

[Phurfur]

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Amazing how raw data shows no warming trend, can end up showing a warming trend. I guess the data is not right, so the 'scientists' correct it. But us non-scientist are not smart enough to question it. I mean taking temperatures and plotting them are just way to complicated...

It is our patriotic duty to expose scam artists trying to shove some scheme that will ripoff all Americans thousands of dollars. I don't trust anything coming from the global warming alarmists. Until they open up their data and let skeptics review it, it is all highly suspect.

Yep, so crazy....here is another story with facts you will ignore further exposing the manipulation. So all we have are emails that cleary show they are manipulating data and data sets that clearly show there is no warming but the official manipulated graphs show a huge warming trend. Only a blind follower of the global warming faith would this all not raise some serious red flags.Skewed science

It's pretty wacky to think that the vast majority of climatologist out there are "activists" scheming to fool the public into believing global warming. I don't have the time to do all the experiments myself, so I tend to go with the experts. Does that open me up to being fooled by them? I suppose so, but given the choices of (a) doing the science myself, (b) taking the scientists' word for it, or (c ) thinking that climatologists are out to get me, I feel pretty good about taking their word for it.

Good for you! I don't believe them because they have been wrong my entire life. Here are some of the predictions made on the occasion of Earth Day 1970. Keep these predictions in mind when you hear similar predictions made today.

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

• Life Magazine, January 1970

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”

• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,”

• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”

• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

 

[Bonzai]

Thanks, I'll be sure to consult you with any future climatological concerns.

 

[tommyboy]

just more proof that people are really stupid.

 

[Statorama]

Listen, just because some of us don't believe in this fraud called GW doesn't mean we don't advocate being responsible as citizens/corporations. I get tired of the pro-GW alarmists accusing those of us skeptics of being "anti-science" and environmentally reckless. It's just not true. We all want a clean and healthy environment, we just differ on the way to go about it.

That's a really great post.

 

[Challenge Everything]

Listen, just because some of us don't believe in this fraud called GW doesn't mean we don't advocate being responsible as citizens/corporations. I get tired of the pro-GW alarmists accusing those of us skeptics of being "anti-science" and environmentally reckless. It's just not true. We all want a clean and healthy environment, we just differ on the way to go about it.

That is a nice attitude to have about the situation. Please, for the FBG community, elaborate on the solutions to the issues that you, and others, are going or have proposed other than "the pro-GW alarmists" have proposed. Unfortunately, all I have heard/read from individuals with your point of view is "GW is wrong" rather than "we could try A, B, and C which may be cheaper".

 

[jon_mx]

Listen, just because some of us don't believe in this fraud called GW doesn't mean we don't advocate being responsible as citizens/corporations. I get tired of the pro-GW alarmists accusing those of us skeptics of being "anti-science" and environmentally reckless. It's just not true. We all want a clean and healthy environment, we just differ on the way to go about it.

That is a nice attitude to have about the situation. Please, for the FBG community, elaborate on the solutions to the issues that you, and others, are going or have proposed other than "the pro-GW alarmists" have proposed. Unfortunately, all I have heard/read from individuals with your point of view is "GW is wrong" rather than "we could try A, B, and C which may be cheaper".

Somehow your screen name is so ironic in this debate.

 

[Challenge Everything]

Listen, just because some of us don't believe in this fraud called GW doesn't mean we don't advocate being responsible as citizens/corporations. I get tired of the pro-GW alarmists accusing those of us skeptics of being "anti-science" and environmentally reckless. It's just not true. We all want a clean and healthy environment, we just differ on the way to go about it.

That is a nice attitude to have about the situation. Please, for the FBG community, elaborate on the solutions to the issues that you, and others, are going or have proposed other than "the pro-GW alarmists" have proposed. Unfortunately, all I have heard/read from individuals with your point of view is "GW is wrong" rather than "we could try A, B, and C which may be cheaper".

Somehow your screen name is so ironic in this debate.

Is that opposing option #1 or is there something that might be a little more effective?

 

[bueno]

It seems crazy to me that people can't agree on the fact that our planet is a finite resource being abused across the board, and that we need to take steps to slow the process of raping and ruining it.

Forgetting the politics for a moment, wouldn't it behoove everyone - particularly our kids and theirs - to manage our home with an eye toward minimizing the damage? It isn't that hard to do if we all just sort of shift our awareness a bit instead of constantly arguing about the extent to which this or that form of pollution is doing harm. We should be able to recognize a problem and deal with it, no matter how far off the end-result might be...

I hate this subject.

Then why waste valuable resources on a problem that does not exist? If CO2 is not the biggest problem facing the planet, and taxes on energy is not going to help, why are we trying to cripple our entire economy with these stupid plans? If we are worried about diminishing resources, then attack that problem, don't create some fictional crisis.

It shouldn't matter if CO2 emission is the biggest problem. If there is evidence suggesting a problem at all, conclusive or not, it should be scary enough to create a dialog. It's not my fault the discussion has morphed into red vs. blue propoganda - just like every f'ing thing these days. I'd even say that the lack of true communication is the bigger, if not the biggest, problem we face right now. I think most sane people can agree that when it comes to this kind of thing, the people throwing out statistics and the people whose job it is to respond to the "facts" all have agendas that don't necessarily coincide with yours or mine.Your "stupid plans" are another man's reasonable concessions in the interest of curtailing the possible net effect of all the ill we visit upon our spinning rock.

Your "fiction" is another's bothersome potentiality. You should deal with that instead of pointing fingers at folks who happen to interpret reality differently. We're dealing with unknowns right now. I'd rather err on the side of caution. Wouldn't you?

With this attitude, man would still be in a cave, shivering in the dark.

 

[bueno]

Jesus.Look at what is happening to the coral reefs. Look at what is happening to the arctic ice cap. Look is what happening to plant/animal growth and migration patterns.Do you yahoos really want to say that all of this is just great, business as usual because you can find some PhD somewhere to say that it is?

Coral reefs live and die off. Have throughout geoloigic history. The arctic ice cap melts away and reforms every year. Plant and animal growth and migration patterns are within normal ranges. Hey, I have Gray Jays in my yard this year. I'm at the southern edge of tehir range. Haven't seen in over five years. I guess that is evidence of global cooling then.

 

[jon_mx]

A pretty damning analysis by a pro-Global Warming scientists of some of the leaders of the Global Warming movement.

Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process

Eduardo Zorita, November 2009

Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.

A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research 'soldiers'. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.

To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words later.

I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research.

I thank explicitely Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter of the IPCC report. As it destills from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge of the hockey-stick graph.

Is legal or ethical to read the CRU files? I am not a layer. It seems that if the files had been hacked this would constitute an illegal act. If they have been leaked it could be a whistle blower action protected by law. I think it is not unethical to read them. Once published, I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the 'hockey stick graph' or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. Also, these mails do not contain any personal information at all. They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior.

Eduardo Zorita

Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research

Department of Paleoclimate ,

Institute for Coastal Research

GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht, Germany

 

[bueno]

Liberals see growth and development as evil and want to stop it, and the environment is often the tool used to achieve that end.

See though, here's where you lose me (and, I assume, a lot of other people). I'm an independent...and my take is that "liberals"/Democrats don't see growth and development as evil. Growth and development equals jobs, and more jobs equal higher standards of living for everyone! Rather, they see growth and development that makes other pay for said growth and development as being inappropriate. An example: asthma. The number of cases of asthma in our country have skyrocketed...at the same time that an ever-growing percentage of our population is living in urban/suburban areas and the parts per million (PPM) of many particles/chemicals believed to be a major contributing factor in asthma and other respiratory illnesses have been on the rise as more and more pollution is deposited into our air/water. Coincidence? Maybe...although most people in the scientific community would seem to attribute these PPM increases directly to the actions of human consumption.So, should the people breathing the air and drinking the water be the ones to pay for our growth and development as a society with their health and skyrocketing health care costs...or should the organizations directly profiting from the building of said products and infrastructure pay for it? If answering that question in the latter makes a person a flaming, bra-burning, pot-smoking liberal (instead of an independent), then I guess pass me the blunt and hand me a lighter.

Or maybe people should just stop living in cities.

 

[bueno]

the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in recent decades.In 1999, Phil Jones, the head of CRU, wrote to activist scientist Michael “Mike” Mann that he has just “completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps … to hide the decline”(0942777075). This refers to a decline in temperatures in recent years revealed by the data he had been reconstructing that conflicted with the observed temperature record. The inconvenient data was therefore hidden under a completely different set of data. Some “trick.”Mann later (2003) announced that “it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP,’ even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back” (1054736277). The MWP is the Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures may have been higher than today. Mann’s desire to “contain” this phenomenon even in the absence of any data suggesting that this is possible is a clear indication of a desire to manipulate the science. There are other examples of putting political/presentational considerations before the science throughout the collection.

From the article I posted earlier:

One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Or in this case, they use the word trick or mean manipulating the data to get the conclusion they want.

 

[bueno]

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Amazing how raw data shows no warming trend, can end up showing a warming trend. I guess the data is not right, so the 'scientists' correct it. But us non-scientist are not smart enough to question it. I mean taking temperatures and plotting them are just way to complicated...

Yea, we should just go ahead and keep polluting our rivers and oceans and paving over our wetlands while clear-cutting the remaining 2% of old-growth forests. What the hell, we geniuses will all be dead in a few decades anyway.

Nice diversion. Old growth gets cut and we get more productive and faster new growth replacing it. Pound for pound, a new tree takes more CO2 out of the air because it grows faster. So cutting old, unproductive trees and replanting the area is actually good for removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

[bueno]

Admitedly, Real Clear Politics is not an unbiased source but:

ClimateGate: The Fix is In

By Robert Tracinski

In early October, I covered a breaking story about evidence of corruption in the basic temperature records maintained by key scientific advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Global warming "skeptics" had unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.

But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have already named it "Climategate."

A hacker-or possibly a disillusioned insider-has gathered thousands of e-mails and data from the CRU and made them available on the Web. Officials at the CRU have verified the breach of their system and acknowledged that the e-mails appear to be genuine.

Yes, this is a theft of data-but the purpose of the theft was to blow the whistle on a much bigger, more brazen crime. The CRU has already called in the police to investigate the hacker. But now someone needs to call in the cops to investigate the CRU.

Australian journalist Andrew Bolt has a good overview of the story, with a selection of incriminating e-mails that have already been discovered in the hacked data. Note that these e-mails reveal more than just what it going on at the CRU, since they involve numerous leading British and American climate scientists outside of the CRU.

These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." They still can't account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out." I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong.

More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward "hockey stick" slope.

Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused.

But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."

So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN's IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming.

This scandal goes beyond scientific journals and into other media used to promote the global warming dogma. For example, RealClimate.org has been billed as an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.

I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.

[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.

And anyone doubting that the mainstream media is in on it, too, should check out New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin's toadying apologia for the CRU e-mails, masquerading as a news report.

The picture that emerges is simple. In any discussion of global warming, either in the scientific literature or in the mainstream media, the outcome is always predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced by the CRU are always tricked out to show an upward-sloping "hockey stick," every discussion of global warming has to show that it is occurring and that humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared as "unscientific" precisely because it threatens the established dogma.

For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in.

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...s_in_99280.html at November 24, 2009 - 09:12:41 AM CST

 

[djmich]

Some things you really don't need much research or scientific evidence for. We treat our planet like ####, period. We can try to be as smart as we want with new inventions, restrictions, whatever, but unless population growth is curbed this place ain't going to be much to look at.

 

[bueno]

Some things you really don't need much research or scientific evidence for. We treat our planet like ####, period. We can try to be as smart as we want with new inventions, restrictions, whatever, but unless population growth is curbed this place ain't going to be much to look at.

You get a QP doll. If there is a problem (and there is, because all non-renewable resources are finite) it is that there are too many of us. Somehow I don't see us stopping procreation though.

 

[Challenge Everything]

Listen, just because some of us don't believe in this fraud called GW doesn't mean we don't advocate being responsible as citizens/corporations. I get tired of the pro-GW alarmists accusing those of us skeptics of being "anti-science" and environmentally reckless. It's just not true. We all want a clean and healthy environment, we just differ on the way to go about it.

That is a nice attitude to have about the situation. Please, for the FBG community, elaborate on the solutions to the issues that you, and others, are going or have proposed other than "the pro-GW alarmists" have proposed. Unfortunately, all I have heard/read from individuals with your point of view is "GW is wrong" rather than "we could try A, B, and C which may be cheaper".

Somehow your screen name is so ironic in this debate.

Is that opposing option #1 or is there something that might be a little more effective?

Instead of offering productive solutions, I see the trend of "pointing out the shortcomings of others" has taken the lead.If the status quo is what is being presented, then say so. If not, then offer some solutions.

 

[jon_mx]

Some things you really don't need much research or scientific evidence for. We treat our planet like ####, period. We can try to be as smart as we want with new inventions, restrictions, whatever, but unless population growth is curbed this place ain't going to be much to look at.

Cool, now we are talking about over population. Is that the problem? How many people will you allow?

 

[bueno]

Some things you really don't need much research or scientific evidence for. We treat our planet like ####, period. We can try to be as smart as we want with new inventions, restrictions, whatever, but unless population growth is curbed this place ain't going to be much to look at.

Cool, now we are talking about over population. Is that the problem? How many people will you allow?

Well my family and yours for sure. But I don't want them interbreeding........ And a bunch a hot Mexican women would be nice too.

 

[jon_mx]

Listen, just because some of us don't believe in this fraud called GW doesn't mean we don't advocate being responsible as citizens/corporations. I get tired of the pro-GW alarmists accusing those of us skeptics of being "anti-science" and environmentally reckless. It's just not true. We all want a clean and healthy environment, we just differ on the way to go about it.

That is a nice attitude to have about the situation. Please, for the FBG community, elaborate on the solutions to the issues that you, and others, are going or have proposed other than "the pro-GW alarmists" have proposed. Unfortunately, all I have heard/read from individuals with your point of view is "GW is wrong" rather than "we could try A, B, and C which may be cheaper".

Somehow your screen name is so ironic in this debate.

Is that opposing option #1 or is there something that might be a little more effective?

Instead of offering productive solutions, I see the trend of "pointing out the shortcomings of others" has taken the lead.If the status quo is what is being presented, then say so. If not, then offer some solutions.

When it comes to proposed government solutions, proposing to do nothing is often times the superior course. I support the status quo, because I really don't see CO2 as a serious problem. There are far more pressing problems to be spending so much time and effort on.

 

[jon_mx]

Some things you really don't need much research or scientific evidence for. We treat our planet like ####, period. We can try to be as smart as we want with new inventions, restrictions, whatever, but unless population growth is curbed this place ain't going to be much to look at.

Cool, now we are talking about over population. Is that the problem? How many people will you allow?

Well my family and yours for sure. But I don't want them interbreeding........ And a bunch a hot Mexican women would be nice too.

Sweet.

 

[djmich]

Some things you really don't need much research or scientific evidence for. We treat our planet like ####, period. We can try to be as smart as we want with new inventions, restrictions, whatever, but unless population growth is curbed this place ain't going to be much to look at.

Cool, now we are talking about over population. Is that the problem? How many people will you allow?

The problem? Not sure what you define as the problem, but if it is the destruction of the natural environment of our planet than yah, overpopulation is a big part of that.If you are nominating me Supreme Dictator of the planet, how about we start at keeping population neutral relative to today's level.

 

[djmich]

Why do so many people want the theory of GW to be true? I know most of the people leading this push are in it for the money, what about the rest of you? Is it so important that GW is true that you ignore facts that it is not? Do you realize that in the 70's they were predicting the beginning of an Ice Age? 20,000 years ago much of North America was covered by 2 miles of ice. Who caused the warm up back then? I think it is the fact that cleaning up the environment is not happening fast enough for some people. We have come along way and are continuing to make progress. It took us centuries to pollute the earth you cannot try to clean it up in a decade. Who remembers when the Cuyahoga River caught fire?

This is a good point, I think GW has grown a life of its own. For many people on both sides of the debate I suppose it became a cause celebre. For many people concerned about the environment that were previously seen as on the fringe of the political debate this gave their concern about the planet a rallying point, and I'm sure they believe it. At this point I don't think it is so much that they want it to be true, as much as they either 1) Believe it is true and any distraction from this truth is unproductive 2) Have so much capital invested (financial, political, emotional) that it cannot be retreated from unless the evidence is a irrefutable.

 

[Bonzai]

Listen, just because some of us don't believe in this fraud called GW doesn't mean we don't advocate being responsible as citizens/corporations. I get tired of the pro-GW alarmists accusing those of us skeptics of being "anti-science" and environmentally reckless. It's just not true. We all want a clean and healthy environment, we just differ on the way to go about it.

That's a really great post.

But we're not even talking about "how we go about it". We're not talking about policy or regulations or whatever. We're just talking about how pretty much every scientific community recognizes the existence of man made climate change. Unless someone has conducted extensive research on their own that challenges the current findings, I feel pretty comfortable referring to someone who can't accept these findings as "anti-science".

 

[tommyboy]

Listen, just because some of us don't believe in this fraud called GW doesn't mean we don't advocate being responsible as citizens/corporations. I get tired of the pro-GW alarmists accusing those of us skeptics of being "anti-science" and environmentally reckless. It's just not true. We all want a clean and healthy environment, we just differ on the way to go about it.

That's a really great post.

But we're not even talking about "how we go about it". We're not talking about policy or regulations or whatever. We're just talking about how pretty much every scientific community recognizes the existence of man made climate change. Unless someone has conducted extensive research on their own that challenges the current findings, I feel pretty comfortable referring to someone who can't accept these findings as "anti-science".

your presumption is false. there is a lot of disagreement on the "existence of man made climate change". And furthermore this argument 5 years ago was man made global warming, but has morphed into man made climate change because the evidence for man made global warming is not there and the planet hasn't warmed the last 10 years, it has actually leveled off. So the powers that be that sell this global warming/climate change hysteria realized they had a marketing problem and decided to market the idea of "climate change". I find that ironic since anyone with a brain would stop and realize the climate has been changing ever since the beginning of time, with or without humans. You can feel as comfortable as you like but labeling people that don't drink the kool aid as anti-science is missing the mark, if anything they are anti politics masquerading as science.

 

[Challenge Everything]

When it comes to proposed government solutions, proposing to do nothing is often times the superior course. I support the status quo, because I really don't see CO2 as a serious problem. There are far more pressing problems to be spending so much time and effort on.

So, the government has no right to enforce pollution standards on the corporations that abuse the environment for every John, Richard, and Harriet? I am not a fan of government regulation in this regard however when businesses and individuals abuse the lack of regulations at the expense of everyone, something needs to be done.Also, in other words, keeping the status quo will continue to pollute our waterways, over use our resources, pollute international waterways, continue to pollute the air, and so on to levels that are harmful but in your mind okay to do. You have no opposition to any of the pollution that goes on in America? What about on a micro level and what you could do by driving less or recycling or keeping your house cooler? None of these are of any concern?Once again, you propose no solutions and continue to yell, "you are wrong, you are wrong, YOU ARE WRONG!" at the same time disregarding the deterioration of everything around you. This is okay? If so, that is sad.

 

[jon_mx]

When it comes to proposed government solutions, proposing to do nothing is often times the superior course. I support the status quo, because I really don't see CO2 as a serious problem. There are far more pressing problems to be spending so much time and effort on.

So, the government has no right to enforce pollution standards on the corporations that abuse the environment for every John, Richard, and Harriet? I am not a fan of government regulation in this regard however when businesses and individuals abuse the lack of regulations at the expense of everyone, something needs to be done.Also, in other words, keeping the status quo will continue to pollute our waterways, over use our resources, pollute international waterways, continue to pollute the air, and so on to levels that are harmful but in your mind okay to do. You have no opposition to any of the pollution that goes on in America? What about on a micro level and what you could do by driving less or recycling or keeping your house cooler? None of these are of any concern?Once again, you propose no solutions and continue to yell, "you are wrong, you are wrong, YOU ARE WRONG!" at the same time disregarding the deterioration of everything around you. This is okay? If so, that is sad.

First off, big corporations are not abusing anyone as CO2 goes. Everyone demands energy and uses it. We have cleaned up power plants and cars to reduce real pollution. C02 is a necessary byproduct of things we consume every day. CO2 is no more of a pollutant than water vapor or oxygen. You try to confuse the issue by bringing up other types of pollution which has nothing to do with CO2. I have no problems with recycling or conserving energy. What is really sad is even after the IPCC is exposed as a fraud, liberals want to pretend like everything they told us is true. The IPCC is run by a bunch of liars. This climategate is a lot bigger of a scandal than you seem to think it is. Just because our media refuses to talk about it, doesn't mean it isn't so. It is getting much larger press around the world, and even scientist proponents of global warming are beginning to speak out against the fraud.