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.
fultonfish said:
Yet another article about the fraudulent and fabrication of climate data

lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=507456
Click to expand...
the echo chamber that has been created by the blogesphere doesn’t advance discussion just helps everyone continue to believe what they already believe - inflaming positions, entrenching sides, doesn’t get anyone anywhere. - Yup, those who agree there is no MMGCC are now completely convinced ALL is fabricated - at the very worst, the scientists involved in this were liars who omitted findings that proved their findings inconclusive - not wrong. But - their efforts were unworthy of the scientific community if in fact they falsified data by omission - yup… yet this is only ONE point (tree ring data) that points to the anthroprgenic impact on climate change… but lets not pay any attention to any of that - lets all gather hands and dance around and sing - see, they were wrong! now we don’t have to do anything! keep exploiting resources and the planet - it won’t do anything to us, and if it hurts someone, we will be fine (or long gone) after all! So while some are getting even more frustrated now, it is easy to understand why IMHO.
 
There are people out there who tried to prove that the resurrection was faked using some sort of plant/chemical concoction. The truth is very obvious. Big Oil and the Big energy companies would be forced to change everything if they went to alternative fuels. So, they will do what ever they can to get people to stop seeking for a change in the way things are done.

To me it is a relevantly insignificant argument as to whether climate change is as pressing an issue as some would like us to believe or not. If ya’ll want to sit around and parrot out politically right wing polemics and conjecture that is fine. I am following the Vatican. I can’t help it. It’s a Catholic thing. 😊
 
Bill_Cherry said:
The truth is very obvious. Big Oil and the Big energy companies would be forced to change everything if they went to alternative fuels. So, they will do what ever they can to get people to stop seeking for a change in the way things are done.
Click to expand...
Ah, the Boogey Man argument. Actually, if there really was great potential for solar and wind you certainly wouldn’t find Big Energy fighting it but leading it as they are probably better positioned to take advantage of it. The real problem, of course, is that it takes huge investments in windmills and solar panels to generate relatively small amounts of electricity.
To me it is a relevantly insignificant argument as to whether climate change is as pressing an issue as some would like us to believe or not.
Click to expand...
I’m sure this is true of many people pushing AGW. It is not seen so much as a threat of global devastation as an opportunity to change people’s behavior in a manner they would never accept except in the belief that not doing so would be even more painful.
If ya’ll want to sit around and parrot out politically right wing polemics and conjecture that is fine. I am following the Vatican. I can’t help it. It’s a Catholic thing.
Click to expand...
Since you aren’t concerned with whether AGW is real perhaps you can’t distinguish between political arguments and scientific ones. Still, it is easier to simply dismiss your opponents objections than rebut them. Nor is the question of the validity of a scientific theory a moral issue. The Church has no position. It is no more Catholic to believe in AGW than to disbelieve it.

Ender
 
4elise said:
the echo chamber that has been created by the blogesphere doesn’t advance discussion just helps everyone continue to believe what they already believe - inflaming positions, entrenching sides, doesn’t get anyone anywhere. - Yup, those who agree there is no MMGCC are now completely convinced ALL is fabricated - at the very worst, the scientists involved in this were liars who omitted findings that proved their findings inconclusive - not wrong. But - their efforts were unworthy of the scientific community if in fact they falsified data by omission - yup… yet this is only ONE point (tree ring data) that points to the anthroprgenic impact on climate change… but lets not pay any attention to any of that - lets all gather hands and dance around and sing - see, they were wrong!
Click to expand...
I agree that, by itself, the CRU emails do not prove AGW is wrong but they are surely indicative. We have for years been told that there is a mammoth scientific consensus supporting the theory, that the “deniers” were an insignificant minority, that the science was pretty much settled. If this is true then why the need for deceit and why does it show up so frequently from those who claim the science is on its side? Nor is this the only example of questionable behavior. CRU is also the group that deleted all of their historical global temperature data with the spurious claim that they no longer had space to store it. NASA, under James Hansen, has consistently stonewalled requests to release the raw US temperature data and the code used to adjust it, in contravention of normal scientific practice. The IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is written primarily by bureaucrats and frequently includes claims not supported by the chapters written by the scientists. There are any number of such examples and they are pretty much all from the side that claims scientific proof of their position. If their claims are so obviously true then why do they resort to such unscientific methods to support them?
now we don’t have to do anything! keep exploiting resources and the planet - it won’t do anything to us, and if it hurts someone, we will be fine (or long gone) after all! So while some are getting even more frustrated now, it is easy to understand why IMHO.
Click to expand...
I wish you wouldn’t start this again but it tends to substantiate a claim the deniers have long made: the supporters of AGW don’t support it because it is true but because it is a convenient way to modify people’s behavior; to get them to behave in a manner that suits those pushing the theory.

Ender
 
Hi Ender! Long time…

Anyway,… seeing as it is part of my morale baseline to be a good steward of the planet and to care about God’s creation, it seems obvious to me that nasty, filthy, limited supply, pollutive methods of creating energy need to be abolished. New clean, sustainable, and environmentally friendly forms of energy need to be investigated.

Unfortunately BIG Business has a moral baseline that is based on money and power. Very worldly. As you said, if they could find a way to make money RIGHT NOW off the need for the new energy then they would jump on it. But, the truth is that it would mean re-engineering everything they started. They didn’t necessarily start it on purpose. It is merely inconvenient for them to start over. Why they do not just come out and admit it is beyond me… I suppose their is an element of pride involved, not wanting to publicly admit an error.

But, just as the abolition of slavery opened up entire new markets and kicked off the industrial revolution,(as opposed to the fears of economic collapse at the time) The same would happen IF (and IF is the operative word here) the abolition of all forms of coal and oil energies was implemented.

But, greed and pride are the preventative factors. Under the guise of impracticality.
 
Check out this dishonest, whitewashing article from Reuters that just appeared by journalist “Gerard Wynn”:

reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSGEE5AP1Y5

“In one e-mail, confirmed by the university as genuine, a scientist jokingly referred to ways of ensuring papers which doubted established climate science did not appear in the AR4.”

Jokingly?

Let’s see:

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” wrote Jones. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

I’m writing to complain. I hope some others who read this will consider doing the same. This is disgusting:

reuters-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/reuters_en.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?p_sid=Xq6ZwYNj&p_lva=&p_li=&p_accessibility=&p_redirect=&p_page=1&p_cv=&p_cats=&p_hidden_prods=&p_new_search=1&p_prod_lvl1=&p_pv=2.47&p_prods=19,47&prod_lvl1=19&prod_lvl2=47&p_masthead=us
 
4elise said:
this is only ONE point (tree ring data) that points to the anthroprgenic impact on climate change… but lets not pay any attention to any of that - lets all gather hands and dance around and sing - see, they were wrong!
Click to expand...
As one who does not have a firm understanding of the sciences involved, I have a certain amount of dependence (actually a great deal of dependence) upon the scientists to know what they are talking about and to be honest about the data they are gathering.

They have been caught lying to me.

I will not afford them the opportunity again.

You want to do something about ‘climate change’?
Fine. I want 100% proof now (not just a preponderance of evidence as I would be swayed with before) that the climate is doing what these people say it is.
Then I want 100% proof that the actions described will help.
Then I want 100% proof that these actions are the only alternative.

Then I will consider it.

Sorry, but I have been lied to. And I will not trust them again.
Without the absolute certainty of 100% proof…go peddle the garbage elsewhere.
 
The data is no good. “Lost” data sets, lost metadata, no QA system. Raw data that was messy to begin with is hopelessly corrupted.
The models are no good. The code is undocumented, unmaintainable. The techniques used are demonstrable garbage. Good science and good statistics are missing.
The results are no good. They’re non-repeatable.

Their (name removed by moderator)ut data, their models, and their results are completely fubar.

No matter how you rationalize it, this is not science. Its more along the lines of dendrophrenology.
 
The code reveals that these “models” are not models or simulations of physical processes as used inhe physical sciences. They are extrapolations of (poor) historical data taken from sources of variable quality. They are then statistically manipulated (with techniques both good and bad) and tweaked (artificially; by hand, no less) to produce desired results. As program notes indicate, “fudge factors” are applied to get the results they want. “Artificial adjustments” are applied throughout. This is just one reason why “Harry” the cleanup programmer is having so much trouble, i.e., there are no physical laws he can refer back to understand past manipulations. If they were doing actual physical modeling, their “energy budget balance” problem shouldn’t be there. The ONLY reason that their “models” mimic the recent historical record somewhat is because they forced the (name removed by moderator)uts to do so. Code comments show that their temperature proxies haven’t mapped to the instrument data since 1960 (Briffa). Even their ability to predict the past (Medieval Warming Period, Little Ice Age) is absent. That’s right: their proxies cannot predict the known past.

The forward predictive capability of their models is ZERO (random chance).

Call it what you will, just don’t call it science.
 
VitaminC said:
Check out this dishonest, whitewashing article from Reuters that just appeared by journalist “Gerard Wynn”:

reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSGEE5AP1Y5

“In one e-mail, confirmed by the university as genuine, a scientist jokingly referred to ways of ensuring papers which doubted established climate science did not appear in the AR4.”

Jokingly?

Let’s see:

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” wrote Jones. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

I’m writing to complain. I hope some others who read this will consider doing the same. This is disgusting:

reuters-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/reuters_en.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?p_sid=Xq6ZwYNj&p_lva=&p_li=&p_accessibility=&p_redirect=&p_page=1&p_cv=&p_cats=&p_hidden_prods=&p_new_search=1&p_prod_lvl1=&p_pv=2.47&p_prods=19,47&prod_lvl1=19&prod_lvl2=47&p_masthead=us
Click to expand...
in response to a comment that brought up a similar concern about trying to keep papers out Bad papers clutter up assessment reports and if they don’t stand up as science, they shouldn’t be included. No-one can ‘redefine’ what the peer-reviewed literature is. - gavin]

And apparently neither of these papers have stood the test of time anyway though they were both discussed in the IPCC AR4 report.
 
vz71 said:
As one who does not have a firm understanding of the sciences involved, I have a certain amount of dependence (actually a great deal of dependence) upon the scientists to know what they are talking about and to be honest about the data they are gathering.

They have been caught lying to me.

I will not afford them the opportunity again.

You want to do something about ‘climate change’?
Fine. I want 100% proof now (not just a preponderance of evidence as I would be swayed with before) that the climate is doing what these people say it is.
Then I want 100% proof that the actions described will help.
Then I want 100% proof that these actions are the only alternative.

Then I will consider it.

Sorry, but I have been lied to. And I will not trust them again.
Without the absolute certainty of 100% proof…go peddle the garbage elsewhere.
Click to expand...
100% proof is impossible though. The only way we could do that is basically to have another earth and then be able to control time so we could see what happens without human influence and so on. See the problem here? But seriously no specific theory in science is ever 100% proven. Heck even our current theory of gravity will likely have to be replaced by a better one.

But we do have enough evidence to have probably more then 90% confidence that we are having a strong influence on temperature trends this century. And really that is about the best your going to be able to get.
 
Calliso said:
in response to a comment that brought up a similar concern about trying to keep papers out Bad papers clutter up assessment reports and if they don’t stand up as science, they shouldn’t be included. No-one can ‘redefine’ what the peer-reviewed literature is. - gavin]

And apparently neither of these papers have stood the test of time anyway though they were both discussed in the IPCC AR4 report.
Click to expand...
Who are you trying to fool?

And learn how to cite your sources, too.
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
 
Calliso said:
Opps I forgot the link a simple mistake sorry. :rolleyes: if you read many of my other posts you would know normally I do remember to include the link
Click to expand...
You didn’t even know where it came from to begin with. You took it from a secondary source and thought it was part of the hacked email. Spare me.
And what do you mean by who are you trying to fool? I am not trying to fool anyone.
Click to expand...
No one except yourself, hopefully; because you’re the only one you have a chance of fooling.
 
Calliso said:
100% proof is impossible though.
Click to expand...
I know.

Kinda lets you know how damning I believe these lies to be.
I initially viewed with skepticism, but tried to maintain an open mind to the objections.

However now I will hear none of it.

Someone has cried wolf a little too often.
 
vz71 said:
As one who does not have a firm understanding of the sciences involved, I have a certain amount of dependence (actually a great deal of dependence) upon the scientists to know what they are talking about and to be honest about the data they are gathering.

They have been caught lying to me.

I will not afford them the opportunity again.

You want to do something about ‘climate change’?
Fine. I want 100% proof now (not just a preponderance of evidence as I would be swayed with before) that the climate is doing what these people say it is.
Then I want 100% proof that the actions described will help.
Then I want 100% proof that these actions are the only alternative.

Then I will consider it.

Sorry, but I have been lied to. And I will not trust them again.
Without the absolute certainty of 100% proof…go peddle the garbage elsewhere.
Click to expand...
If your opinion had changed as a result of this event, than I would see your point - however I believe you didn’t accept the science before this - so I would be surprised if this event moved you toward a position of belief in MMCC - people who do not believe obviously feel vilified - those of us who still believe that there are man made efforts that are contributing to climate change are disappointed, and believe action must be taken - as you know I opt to support for the personal changes 😉 Hope you had a happy Thanksgiving!
 
I find it interesting how many people here are apparently smarter than the rocket scientists who compile the data…:cool:

climate.nasa.gov/

(👋 Hi 4Elise! Happy Thanksgiving!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top