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

[Calliso]

The eruption of mount Pinatubo in the Philippines is estimated to have expelled more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than man has even produced. What are the greenies going to do about volcanoes? Tax them?

Actually that isn;t true at all. Humans produce FAR more co2 then volcanoes. volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes–the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

 

[vz71]

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991).

145 to 255 is a huge amount of variance.

My skepticism meter is pinging.

 

[edwest2]

When Galileo said that the Earth revolves around the sun, the Church said he was a heretic. Some Christians today say that scientists are wrong when they say the Earth is billions of years old. They say that every word in the Bible must be taken as literally true and that the Bible indicates that the world is 6000 years old.

The Bible was written by people. Those people were inspired by God, but they were not infallible. I don’t believe that every word in the Bible is literally true and I don’t believe that Christianity is incompatible with science. God loves his Creation and that includes science.

If we tell people that Christianity is incompatible with science, then we make it harder for people to accept Christianity and we obscure the important Christian messages.

Is science the new circumcision? A requirement for entry into the House of God? When you meet someone and they ask you, Why did Jesus have to die? What is the answer? The Bible was not written by the will of men but by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Our duty, as Christians, is to preach the Gospel. To spread the good news. I am told here, constantly, that science has nothing to say about the supernatural or God; that it cannot study the supernatural or God, yet it is brought up here constantly. Why? To prove God or the supernatural? Or to connect the supernatural to science? How?

There is no truth in science, I’m told, just provisional explanations that can get overturned next week.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Contarini]

The entire man-made global warming threat is based on fabricated, cherry picked, data.

You ruin a valid case by overstatement. This article concerns one study, which is hardly the base for the entire theory.

Edwin

 

[po18guy]

Actually that isn;t true at all. Humans produce FAR more co2 then volcanoes. volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

First word out of their mouths:

"USGS: Your source for science you can use

As an unbiased…"

Why is it so vitally important that the first words they choose to use are these? A very odd choice, and one that raises questions in my mind.

 

[Calliso]

First word out of their mouths: Why is it so vitally important that the first words they choose to use are these? A very odd choice, and one that raises questions in my mind.

I would imagine they would say that to insure they aren;t a group of people that might have a reason to be biased. I mean they aren;t a green peace type of group which you could argue might have biases on certain issues. Not everyone going to their site might know or not if they are trully a scientific group or a advocacy group you know?

 

[Calliso]

You ruin a valid case by overstatement. This article concerns one study, which is hardly the base for the entire theory.

Edwin

Exactly and as I have show in the links I have posted the claims that this study is fabricated or based on cherry picked data are pretty weak. And like you said it;s one study heck even if it was two or three it really wouldn;t matter much as there are lots of studies out there.
Though you did remind me of the rather humorous at least to me lol beginning of the real climate article…

Interesting news this weekend. Apparently everything we’ve done in our entire careers is a “MASSIVE lie” (sic) because all of radiative physics, climate history, the instrumental record, modeling and satellite observations turn out to be based on 12 trees in an obscure part of Siberia. Who knew?

 

[Calliso]

145 to 255 is a huge amount of variance.

My skepticism meter is pinging.

Well I imagine it;s not the same each year and that probably includes error range as well. It’s doubtful that they can get a 100% accurate measurement. But they might be able to get a 90% accurate reading for instance. But even if those numbers are off…unless they are astronomically off it is unlikely volcanic co2 emissions come anywhere close to human co2 emissions.

and just a little edit here I went back and reread that little post and it even says it;s an estimate. So it;s not supposed to be an exact number or anything. If it was there would probably be decimal points involved lol.

 

[po18guy]

I would imagine they would say that to insure they aren;t a group of people that might have a reason to be biased. I mean they aren;t a green peace type of group which you could argue might have biases on certain issues. Not everyone going to their site might know or not if they are trully a scientific group or a advocacy group you know?

The fact that “US” is in their name in no way implies objectivity. The US Department of State, for example, has both overtly and covertly opposed the aims of several Presidents, as well as the desires of the majority of voters. Every organization is biased. It is impossible not to be. I appreciate the honestly of those organizations which reveal their bias up front, and do not hide behind buzzwords.

When someone begins a story with “I’m not lying”, shouldn’t a tiny bit of healthy skepticism pop up in your mind?

 

[PeterMuz]

If anyone is interested in reading a book by Michael Crichton called State of Fear that is really good.

 

[WinterWH]

The debunking of the use of tree rings for temperature proxy use has nothing to do with advancing a new scientific theory.

It’s simply doing a long overdue audit of the data that was used in a widely used scientific paper that turned out to be fraudulent.

omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/stop-press-agw-believer-stumbles-accuses-briffa-of-unethical-behavior-threatens-agw-edifice/

There is no need to come up with a replacement theory.

Briffa cheated by making stuff up and getting everyone to accept his fake data. It was a gross act of misrepresentation.

That’s the long and short of it.

If you cheat on your income tax, the IRS doesn’t have to have to do too much more. If they catch you using your beloved Labrador Retriever as a dependent, you are toast. [You do have the right to defend yourself, but in this particular case of the tree rings, the cheating was egregious.]

There was no need to come up with an alternative investment scheme when Madoff was found out.

What we are dealing with here is the scientific equivalent of a Ponzi Scheme.

 

[po18guy]

The debunking of the use of tree rings for temperature proxy use has nothing to do with advancing a new scientific theory.

It’s simply doing a long overdue audit of the data that was used in a widely used scientific paper that turned out to be fraudulent.

omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/stop-press-agw-believer-stumbles-accuses-briffa-of-unethical-behavior-threatens-agw-edifice/

There is no need to come up with a replacement theory.

Briffa cheated by making stuff up and getting everyone to accept his fake data. It was a gross act of misrepresentation.

That’s the long and short of it.

If you cheat on your income tax, the IRS doesn’t have to have to do too much more. If they catch you using your beloved Labrador Retriever as a dependent, you are toast. [You do have the right to defend yourself, but in this particular case of the tree rings, the cheating was egregious.]

There was no need to come up with an alternative investment scheme when Madoff was found out.

What we are dealing with here is the scientific equivalent of a Ponzi Scheme.

Some people are cursed with such a misplaced sense of guilt that they desire strongly to cling to every cockamamie theory that is proferred using pre-cooked data. As you say, reason and logic, or even basic investigative skills are not strongly associated with these climate theories. Each GW devotee has his or her own favorite “go to” source for statistics and emotionally charged rhetoric. Also, there are any number of similarly biased organizations that cherry pick studies and put forth supporting subjective data.

 

[vz71]

Well I imagine it;s not the same each year and that probably includes error range as well. It’s doubtful that they can get a 100% accurate measurement. But they might be able to get a 90% accurate reading for instance. But even if those numbers are off…

We are not talking 100%, or even 90%.

The varience given is nearly half.

That is unreliable data, and cause for skepticism.

 

[WinterWH]

It gets worse.

Right now it appears that the raw data (normally kept forever) for temperature trend analysis has been destroyed.

[Text borrowed from others; no link available]

It appears that someone (CEI) is taking EPA to task over the fact that the raw temperature data held by HadCRU, data which I always thought were of primarily importance to scientific studies for reproducibility and validation, were either destroyed outright or allowed to be destroyed. Whether Jones, et al., were covering their tracks or not has no bearing on this, IMHO. They failed a test of their scientific integrity. Shame on them.

An engineer who failed to maintain records of his projects for a reasonable amount of time (likely approaching perpetuity) would be raked over the coals if one of his/her projects failed and cost human lives or pain and suffering, plus imposing the more mundane damages on the owner. The engineer’s insurance company might pay the claim, but would probably never provide coverage for that person again.

And in this case, we have EPA (and the Congress) attempting to put new regulations in place and pass new restrictive legislation on an unknown scientific basis. Shame on EPA, too. They decided to rely nearly exclusively on an analysis by others as the basis for their action. And the funding by EPA and DOE is apparently gone to waste as well. The bad thing is the HadCRU/IPCC data MIGHT be perfectly sound or might only be THOUGHT TO BE SOUND today, but what if Jones or the next “keeper of the data” uncovers a significant correction that may have been misapplied, based on a subsequent review of an earlier (peer-reviewed) paper? Most likely it will be impossible to reverse-engineer the original data… And Jones should darn well know it!

The CEI petition can be found at: CEI is at it again. cei.org/news-release/2009/10/05/govt-funded-research-unit-destroyed-original-climate-data.

 

[WinterWH]

More and more articles describing various aspects of this scandal.

lewrockwell.com/lilley/floy13.1.html

The whole idea of increased / increasing global temperatures is falling apart as well.

The implications are such that it calls into question the whole notion of trusting government to do much of anything except trying to increase government power.

 

[po18guy]

One possible scenario for the origin and propagation of GC/GW/CC (cooling, warming, change):

1. We must limit population. Those most deserving of limitation are the poor (ZPG).
2. We must find a way to make the wholesale prevention/elimination of “undesirables” acceptable, if not preferable.
3. Abortion is in place, having established a right to kill. It is eliminating “undesirables” (Justice Ginsberg) but is not acting quickly enough.
4. Euthanasia is taking far too long to be accepted (Holland, Oregon and Washington are ineffective).
5. The Church’s stand on life must be marginalized (Catholics for Choice + media).
6. If we cannot do that, we must somehow involve the Church, out of “humanitarian” concern for the poor (USCCB).
7. Once the Church is involved, switch the focus to climate’s effect on the poor (catholicsandclimatechange.org).
8. If data was available that showed the earth cannot sustain even the current population, this would greatly assist.
9. Since the earth is now of equal or higher value than human life, let us convince the voters that either the "coming ice age (1971), or Global Warming (1980s-1990s) or Climate Change (new millennium) will impact all - both rich and poor.
10. Repeat the “dire consequences” of inaction until they are internalized by the masses.
11. Never reveal that the ultimate goal is to eliminate the poor.
12. Use faulty, insufficient data that is negligently peer-reviewed, in conjunction with a willing media, to propagandize the world (CRU).
13. Press for legislation that is not studied, or even read (Conyers) before passage.
14. Along with it, offer what is euphemistically called “Health Care” (Obama).
15. Provide for abortion funding, both domestic and foreign, as well as stealth euthanasia as part of “health care”. Call abortion and euthanasia ANYTHING but what they are (UNESCO).
16. Crush all opposition by mandating compliance and removing all reference and recourse to “conscience” (“Health Care” bill).
17. When in danger of being exposed, destroy or allow to be destroyed, all data - knowing that the machine is already in motion (???).
18. If Orwell only knew…

 

[po18guy]

The implications are such that it calls into question the whole notion of trusting government to do much of anything except trying to increase government power.

As evidenced by the “health care” bill. It is the old shell game. It’s not about health care, it’s about the government.

 

[edwest2]

po18guy,

Population control. You should read up on Malthus. Old idea, now repackaged.

Peace,
Ed

 

[po18guy]

Population control. You should read up on Malthus. Old idea, now repackaged. Peace,
Ed

I did. Right on. He was just a 19th century elitist. Maybe only the Malthus family size should have been limited, since we have an overabundance of elitists in the 21st century…

 

[fultonfish]

The non-global warming global warming reducing us to mere drones continues:

lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=498959