Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data

[vz71]

It is, but your reasoning is backwards. Evolution is not true because 100,000 scientists base their work on it. They base their work on it because they recognize it to be true.

Oh, I’m sorry.

I thought that was your reasoning.

All of the numbers and the ‘consenses’ that you keep bringing up confused me.

 

[vz71]

Read some professional journals. Attend some conference of evolutionary biology societies. Do some original research. Ignore the anti-evolutionist “think” tanks.

Your bias is showing.

If you wish to make a wise decision, it is prudent to take advantage of all the information available. That would include the think tanks you so swiftly discount.

How can I take seriously the arguments from someone that so obviously ignores evidence that runs contrary to their beliefs?

 

[Ender]

Back in posts on this thread - back somewhere in the 80’s I posted charts from NOAA - which everyone seems quite content to ignore - or just say -* “that isn’t true”* - so I guess I should have learned at that point that many will just go on believing what they want - and there is NO way that information can be introduced or shown to them that would make them consider their position - this scandal if it is indeed shown to be true that some scientists set aside data to prove their point is a scandal - however there is MUCH MUCH more - I do wish of course that everyone would make changes in their lives that can make a difference but apparently this isn’t the place to try to influence that kind of change.

I went back to look at the NOAA chart you posted and no one doubts that it shows significant warming toward the end of the last century. Up until recently I think everyone accepted that the chart accurately reflected global temperatures. The argument then was that even though warming has been occurring the theory that blamed the warming on increased CO2 was weak, despite claims that “everyone” knew it was true.

The argument now is different. Given the disclosures of what was going on at CRU (not least of which was the destruction of all their raw data), the fact that NASA has released neither its raw data or the methods used to “adjust” it, coupled with questionable (to say the least) adjustments in the data from New Zealand (and apparently Australia), the question now is whether or not warming is even occurring.

The NOAA chart you posted is based on data that is suspect and until the unadjusted data are released along with the methods used to adjust them there is no reason they should simply be accepted. The chart may not be wrong but it requires a suspension of credulity to simply take the word of the people who created it.

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

I went back to look at the NOAA chart you posted and no one doubts that it shows significant warming toward the end of the last century. Up until recently I think everyone accepted that the chart accurately reflected global temperatures. The argument then was that even though warming has been occurring the theory that blamed the warming on increased CO2 was weak, despite claims that “everyone” knew it was true.

The argument now is different. Given the disclosures of what was going on at CRU (not least of which was the destruction of all their raw data), the fact that NASA has released neither its raw data or the methods used to “adjust” it, coupled with questionable (to say the least) adjustments in the data from New Zealand (and apparently Australia), the question now is whether or not warming is even occurring.

The NOAA chart you posted is based on data that is suspect and until the unadjusted data are released along with the methods used to adjust them there is no reason they should simply be accepted. The chart may not be wrong but it requires a suspension of credulity to simply take the word of the people who created it.

Ender

Exactly!!!

 

[Calliso]

I think I have posted this link before but I will post it again. But here is a link to tons of data raw included. realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Oh and as for the CRU destorying data ummm you can still get the raw data
climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/scientists-return-fire/

Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there—you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”

So the idea that all this raw data was destoryed is just plain false.

 

[Calliso]

Ugh I meant to edit my other post but missed the deadline. I had posted more but for now I will just repost this link. skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=61&&n=99

 

[kimmielittle]

I think I have posted this link before but I will post it again. But here is a link to tons of data raw included. realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Oh and as for the CRU destorying data ummm you can still get the raw data
climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/scientists-return-fire/

Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there—you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”

So the idea that all this raw data was destoryed is just plain false.

How does Mr. Jones know what was destroyed?
Mr.Jones didn’t work there…when it was dumped. [raw data]
BUT he did ask others to delete… recently ].in order to get past Freedom of Information.

This is simply a bait and switch

 

[Callin]

Oh and as for the CRU destorying data ummm you can still get the raw data
climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/scientists-return-fire/

Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there—you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”

So the idea that all this raw data was destoryed is just plain false.

But the CRU itself says raw station data was destroyed.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5993365#post5993365

Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

And as for Jones’ knowledge on the issue:

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s,

 

[spn82756]

I’m sorry you think it is a hoax. I deal with analogous objections from creationists all the time, who claim that evolution is a hoax – despite the fact that a hundred thousand biologists premise their work on it. I’m going to stick with the consensus of professional climate scientists on the matter of climate change. At least you still have this forum where you may complain about Copenhagen, the Vatican, the universities, etc.

StAnastasia

It’s not the consensus. That’s where you’ve been mislead. I am sorry that you not consider me to be a part of the professionals. You’re mistake.

peace

 

[hawkeye]

I find it interesting how many people here are apparently smarter than the rocket scientists who compile the data…

climate.nasa.gov/

( Hi 4Elise! Happy Thanksgiving!)

Would that be the same Scientists that can’t cure the common cold, swine flu, or it’s mutations ?

 

[buffalo]

It is, but your reasoning is backwards. Evolution is not true because 100,000 scientists base their work on it. They base their work on it because they recognize it to be true. In the same way, gravity is not made a correct theory because the world’s physicists accept it; rather they accept it because it is true.

StAnastasia

SO bogus. Please share in EXACTLY what fields and who uses evolution.

To most biologists evolution doesn’t even enter into the picture.

They accept it because of the “fascism of science”. (I like this new term)

This is a failed argument and I recommend you stop using it. Your credibility is falling to an all time low.

 

[buffalo]

NASA Stonewalling Stokes Fears Climategate Will Spread to U.S.

Climategate may be just the tip of the global-warming iceberg according to the Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, which says the next weather-science scandal may erupt right here in the United States.
For nearly three years CEI, a free-market, public-interest organization, has pursued a series of Freedom of Information Act Requests intended to force NASA’s climate-science division to hand over e-mails it says could reflect the same sort of pro-warming bias seen in the recent e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University.
One reason NASA’s unresponsiveness is drawing attention: For years, the CRU stonewalled a request filed through the British information-act process, before information was “hacked” and posted on the Internet in November.
“They have resisted and haven’t wanted to turn anything over,” CEI Energy and Global Warming Policy Director Myron Ebell says of NASA. “… So this looks like climate gate all over again to us.”

more…

 

[kimmielittle]

Would that be the same Scientists that can’t cure the common cold, swine flu, or it’s mutations ?

oh my

 

[kimmielittle]

NASA Stonewalling Stokes Fears Climategate Will Spread to U.S.

Climategate may be just the tip of the global-warming iceberg according to the Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, which says the next weather-science scandal may erupt right here in the United States.
For nearly three years CEI, a free-market, public-interest organization, has pursued a series of Freedom of Information Act Requests intended to force NASA’s climate-science division to hand over e-mails it says could reflect the same sort of pro-warming bias seen in the recent e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University.
One reason NASA’s unresponsiveness is drawing attention: For years, the CRU stonewalled a request filed through the British information-act process, before information was “hacked” and posted on the Internet in November.
“They have resisted and haven’t wanted to turn anything over,” CEI Energy and Global Warming Policy Director Myron Ebell says of NASA. “… So this looks like climate gate all over again to us.”

more…

Dr. James Hansen darling of the Global Warming hoax. Is the Same Scientist ??] that told the world we would be in an ice age in ten years…this was in 1970’s.

 

[VitaminC]

UN Security Stops Journalist’s Questions About ClimateGate

(Be sure to watch the short video clip):

View article here.

This is how it was presented in a different article from the stanfordreview website.

 

[spn82756]

Dr. James Hansen darling of the Global Warming hoax. Is the Same Scientist ??] that told the world we would be in an ice age in ten years…this was in 1970’s.

Ah yes…“The Weather Conspiracy…the Coming of the New Ice Age”

 

[itinerant1]

Looking back…about the last thing I read about global warming was two years ago and it was the following article: Has global warming stopped? (New Statesman Published 19 December 2007)

Excerpt:

“The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.”

Any opinions on Has global warming stopped?

Also, here is an interesting website: Real Climate: Climate Science from Climate Scientists

 

[spn82756]

Looking back…about the last thing I read about global warming was two years ago and it was the following article: Has global warming stopped? (New Statesman Published 19 December 2007)

Excerpt:

“The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.”

Any opinions on Has global warming stopped?

Also, here is an interesting website: Real Climate: Climate Science from Climate Scientists

LOL…you hit the nail on the head. It’s hard to stop something that hasn’t started.

 

[itinerant1]

LOL…you hit the nail on the head. It’s hard to stop something that hasn’t started.

That’s why I quit studying global warming. There were too many questionable things going on. I could see the writing on the wall.

I figured my time would be better spent in learning how to protect the environment and also encouraging others to respect God’s creation.

 

[spn82756]

That’s why I quit studying global warming. There were too many questionable things going on. I could see the writing on the wall.

I figured my time would be better spent in learning how to protect the environment and also encouraging others to respect God’s creation.

There’s where we should be focusing. Being better stewards of God’s creation.