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

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterWH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This debate isn’t about fuel efficiency, new technology, or pollution; it is about whether the CO2 man produces has led to global warming … and that’s all.
CO2 is no more a pollutant than water vapor is.
Even if this were true - which is debatable - the question is not whether there has been warming but whether CO2 was the cause.
This one is not debatable: it is simply incorrect. In 2009 we reached a 30 year low in tropical cyclone energy. Again: this (if true) would be an argument that warming is occurring, not that CO2 is the cause.
Despite the fact that the latest records being set are all cold weather ones, again: this goes to the fact of warming, not about causation.

I think the wheels are coming off the AGW bandwagon. There will be more years of huffing and puffing but eventually this farce will go the way of the Piltdown Man.

Ender
Ok I had taken a little break from these discussions but I think I can answer a couple of these issues.

First of all in the sense of do they cause stuff like acid rain and what not…yeah co2 and water vapor are equal. In the sense of their relation to global warming though…Co2 is a much bigger concern then water vapor. yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/ So in other words water vapor on it;s own cannot be the cause of temperature change.

As for whether or not co2 is the primary cause of global warming I think this would be a good link for you to read. skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html And it;s not the sun either. skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm or volcanoes… skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm So basically the question for the skeptics would be if Co2 is not a bit cause of the warming then why? And also then what is causing the warming? And so far there has been no solid theory just hypothesises.

It seems the effect of global warming on hurricanes is still iffy as far as I can tell so will pass on this one.

As for more record cold days actually I have heard that over the years if you look at the world as a whole there has been more record hot days. But I can;t seem to find a source. However…I think it is quite possible that in recent monthes maybe years depending on where you look that there has been more record cold years. But global warming deals with the globe not just certain areas of the globe.

But no the theory of man madeclimate change is still quite solid and well supported by the evidence. It is the skeptics here that are grasping at straws.
 
But no the theory of man madeclimate change is still quite solid and well supported by the evidence. It is the skeptics here that are grasping at straws.
This does not make sens.
In one sentance it is claimed that there is no theory on man made global warming that is solid and well supported.
But in the second the claim is that the skeptics are the ones grasping at straws.

Please explain this apparent contradiction.
 
As for whether or not co2 is the primary cause of global warming I think this would be a good link for you to read.
The theory is not so esoteric that the layman cannot understand it, and I, like many others, know what it is. I can also read charts and graphs and know what the data look like - and the data points don’t match the theory predictions.
And also then what is causing the warming? And so far there has been no solid theory just hypothesises.
Whether or not this is true, it isn’t necessary for me to have an answer in order to determine that another answer is incorrect. Seventeenth century man didn’t have to understand electricity in order to reject the notion that lightening bolts were sparks from Thor’s hammer.
As for more record cold days actually I have heard that over the years if you look at the world as a whole there has been more record hot days… But global warming deals with the globe not just certain areas of the globe.
There is a rather large disconnect between global temperatures and US temperatures. The US, for which by far the most complete and accurate data exist, has shown virtually no significant warming at all in over a century. Since the US has been the largest source of CO2 over the past half century it seems odd that we don’t suffer the same effects as everyone else.


Ender
 
I would like to be the first to call BS with these charts.

The scientific instruments necessary to measure global temperature to within a tenth of a degree simply were not around at the time.

It actually could be argued that we do not possess the capacity to do so today either.

And the average glacier thickness should actually be the average thickness of glaciers we have measured. Big difference there.
 
Post #84 shows US mean temperatures since 1900; post #86 shows global mean temperatures and it is immediately obvious that the two graphs don’t look very much alike. For the US, even the hottest decade (98-07) never got much above the highs reached in the 40’s and the current means for the last two years are back to normal. Global temperatures, however, have soared and current temperatures are nowhere near as low as they were in the past.

Why is that? The US, representing a huge geographic area and having the most complete and accurate data globally available, shows virtually none of the warming supposedly detected globally. Given also that we have been the major producer of CO2 for at least half a century the difference between the two charts is counter intuitive; if anything, one would expect to see our temperatures higher than the rest of the globe since our concentration of CO2 must surely be higher than elsewhere. Hmmm, maybe we’ve got it all backwards; maybe CO2 has been protecting us from increased warming.

Ender
 
Post #84 shows US mean temperatures since 1900; post #86 shows global mean temperatures and it is immediately obvious that the two graphs don’t look very much alike. For the US, even the hottest decade (98-07) never got much above the highs reached in the 40’s and the current means for the last two years are back to normal. Global temperatures, however, have soared and current temperatures are nowhere near as low as they were in the past.

Why is that? The US, representing a huge geographic area and having the most complete and accurate data globally available, shows virtually none of the warming supposedly detected globally. Given also that we have been the major producer of CO2 for at least half a century the difference between the two charts is counter intuitive; if anything, one would expect to see our temperatures higher than the rest of the globe since our concentration of CO2 must surely be higher than elsewhere. Hmmm, maybe we’ve got it all backwards; maybe CO2 has been protecting us from increased warming.

Ender
I am curious where did you get that graph. Here is another graph that seems to show a much different story on USA temperature. data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif

It should also be noted that the US only makes up 2% of the globe.

Also according to NOAA US temperature has risen at an average of about 1.1 degrees F per century. epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html

So in other words yes the US is warming and though it might seem a large part of the globe it really isn;t.
 
The US is huge yes, however just a 6% if global land area and less than 1.9 of the total global surface area:
Code:
 3,718,711 Sq. Miles US
57,308,738 Sq. Miles total global land area
198,000,000 Sq. Miles total global area

The CO2 and methane produced in industrialized countries appears to have impact far beyond our borders - we are not in this world alone. The impact on total global temps is what is reflected in the NOAA chart and more reflective of reality.

When even watching the evening news we observe the movement of a storm - why would we believe that the green house gases produced by the US would sit like a column above us? Of course these green house gases move, and impact the rest of the world as well.

National Geographic has some great graphs and information on this on a global level - not only the US
environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-impacts-interactive.html

Also the USCCB has some great information in conjunction with the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change about our responsibility to our brothers and sisters who will be most impacted by rising sea levels, drought, decreased growing seasons, diseases…

catholicclimatecovenant.org/
The impact of climate change falls heaviest on the world’s poor. As Catholics, our faith demands prudent action.
Our cars and power plants, more energy consumption and waste—we’re leaving a bigger carbon footprint. Scientists tell us that means more climate change. Here and around the world, it is the poor who will be hit hardest. With more droughts, floods, hunger and joblessness. As faithful Catholics, we have a moral obligation to care for both Creation and the poor. Pope Benedict XVI insists, “Before it is too late, it is necessary to make courageous decisions” to curb climate change.
 
I am curious where did you get that graph. Here is another graph that seems to show a much different story on USA temperature. data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif

It should also be noted that the US only makes up 2% of the globe.

Also according to NOAA US temperature has risen at an average of about 1.1 degrees F per century. epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html

So in other words yes the US is warming and though it might seem a large part of the globe it really isn;t.
We are huge - with the impact we are having!
According to the UN’s Livestock’s Long Shadow report, land-use is the primary reason why livestock’s share of global GHG is so high:
Code:
“(livestock) accounts for nine percent of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, most of it due to expansion of pastures and arable land for feed crops.
Code:
The livestock sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user of land. Grazing occupies 26 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial surface, while feed crop production requires about a third of all arable land. Expansion of grazing land for livestock is a key factor in deforestation, especially in Latin America: some 70 percent of previously forested land in the Amazon is used as pasture, and feed crops cover a large part of the reminder.
 
I spent some of my travel time compiling comments:

From the beginning of this debate a few years ago, the fact that flawed data was being used, was evident to a lot of us non-professionals. Then followed the tasking of the original hockey stick data scientists to head the verification of this data. You got to be kidding. That fact alone should have been a warning that this was a scientific scam. arg

This fellow Briffa used a thin sample of only ten (10) trees for the recent years which showed the hockey-stick jump, and it was inconsistent for those years with numerous other tree cores from nearby which were available but not included. To top it off, one tree in particular, YAD061, showed a huge jump which while most of the others in Briffa’s ten-tree sample don’t show a hockey stick at all. YAD061 skewed the results for the already-small sample and is, thus, as McIntyre put it, “the most influential tree in the world.”

Briffa refused to release his work’s underlying data for 10 years, until compelled to do so by the Royal Society which had published a paper of his which used that data.

Consider what the enviros tried to do to Bjørn Lomborg. Will there be an accounting?

The Medieval Warming, and Little Ice Age, used to be taught in high school. Mann is relying on the general ignorance of a population, educated in government schools.

In the Little House on the Prairie books, blizzards in May, in Dakota, are mentioned.

The dendochronology scam underlying the “hockey stick” should come as no big surprise.

There is no legitimate data underlying the connection with global warming with human activity.

Check out the various US government websites touting AGW. Every one cites IPCC as the basis for it’s position.

Every single government grant has been awarded on a “find AGW” basis.

The computer models were written by pro AGW “scientists” for the purpose of proving AGW and source code is not available to critics

Raw data is “not available.”

Funding for critical researchers is “not available.”

Dissent from within government is grounds for termination or transfer to menial positions.

Anyone see a pattern?

People write fictions, it is published in book forms and they make profits legally. They may even get the Nobel Prize. It affects some people in a good way.

In Nigeria some people devised a scam and also a fiction, called 409 by their Government. It’s illegal and punishable by the law. It affects some people in a bad way.

Some high profile people devise an improved version of it on a Global scale called Climate Change (more like “409 Trillion exchange” but in this form not very appealing) also a fiction but it has a “flaw”. To correct the flaw they make it a law and implement it worldwide. It will affect every human being, animal and even plants on the face of Earth but it won’t affect the climate. It is also made into a movie and got the Nobel Prize.

I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent…Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year.

In short, evidence is deeply flawed or non-existent.

The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion.

In short, we’ve been deliberately and maliciously lied to again.

Over the coming few years, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to start thinking for themselves again.

Not if public schools and junk science continue to give Americans information. Don’t count on it. Liberals don’t like thinking for themselves.

The Global Warming fiasco is based on the reverse proof. That is, the claim is that man made global warming is a fact. Rather than building a firm foundation of real data to prove their assertion, they turn the tables. It becomes a “do you still beat your wife?” question. The true believers demand that skeptics prove that man made global warming is not happening.

As anyone knows it is nearly impossible to prove the negative. They are winning with lies, half-truths, and political power.

This was never about science nor helping folks nor Mother earth - it has always been about power, money and control.

Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor’s Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)

Gore’s call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac’s call in 2000.

On November 20, 2000, then French President Chirac said during a speech at The Hague that the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented “the first component of an authentic global governance.” @ campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=21632#

Who cares about facts with this at stake.
Well said!!!
 
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.
👍👍

I think I posted the link.👍
 
MORE SCANDAL STUFF.

REALLY NASTY.

lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=506575

More later.

I will be home for Thanksgiving and may have a chance to post more.

Maybe someone can further pursue the information about how the global warming data is being fabricated.

Gotta run.
 
Climate Skeptics See ‘Smoking Gun’ in Researchers’ Leaked E-Mails

** Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a mysterious reference to a plan to “hide the decline,” apparently in temperatures.**
The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the theft of 61MB of confidential data.
Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a “smoking gun,” evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself “FOIA.”

more…
 
Climate Skeptics See ‘Smoking Gun’ in Researchers’ Leaked E-Mails

** Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a mysterious reference to a plan to “hide the decline,” apparently in temperatures.**
The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the theft of 61MB of confidential data.
Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a “smoking gun,” evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself “FOIA.”

more…
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html
The Telegraph has posted some of the more scathing excerpts from these emails, which the newspaper suggests points to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the reality of global warming, though the much of the scientific language in the e-mails is esoteric and hard to interpret.
Others suggest the comments are simply “scientists talking about science.” In an interview with Wired, Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, points out that "if you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top