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

[kimmielittle]

KimmieLittle, do you know how desperate you sound?

"The fact that groups opposing action on climate change are crying “conspiracy” shows how desperate they are to discredit scientists.

The thousands of stolen emails span more than a decade. Whoever stole them could only produce a handful of messages that, when taken out of context, might seem suspicious to people who are not familiar with the intimate details of climate science.

Opponents of climate action have been attacking climate science for years. The fact that out-of-context personal attacks on scientists are the most successful argument they can offer speaks volumes about their failure to gain any traction by arguing against the evidence."

ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#The_fact_that_groups_opposing_action_on_

Actually, It is not me that seems desperate.

So the hockey stick was real?
Polar bears are needing EPA protection under endangered species?
Co2 is the cause of AGW?

These are issues CRU and IPCC have used to promote their own agendas.

 

[Callirhoe]

KimmieLittle, do you know how desperate you sound?

The fact that out-of-context personal attacks on scientists are the most successful argument they can offer speaks volumes about their failure to gain any traction by arguing against the evidence."

ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#The_fact_that_groups_opposing_action_on_

The e-mails are only one argument.

How about the fact that in the ice core data, carbon dioxide concentrations FOLLOW temperature changes?

How about the fact that in the last couple hundred years, sunspot data correlate much more closely with temperature changes than do carbon dioxide concentrations?

How about the fact that Mars was warming the same time as Earth?

How about Mann’s analysis that turns even a random data set into a “hockey stick”?

How about the fact that in Copenhagen they’re talking about record heat this year, while in most of the northern hemisphere we are having unusual cold and snow?

Hope this helps,

“Callirhoe”

 

[kimmielittle]

What these emails do show BY their own acts…is constant abuse of power.
Politicized science.
A cover-up.

All pointing to what other scientist have thought of the AGW movement. CRU proved this

 

[kimmielittle]

The e-mails are only one argument.

How about the fact that in the ice core data, carbon dioxide concentrations FOLLOW temperature changes?

How about the fact that in the last couple hundred years, sunspot data correlate much more closely with temperature changes than do carbon dioxide concentrations?

How about the fact that Mars was warming the same time as Earth?

How about Mann’s analysis that turns even a random data set into a “hockey stick”?

How about the fact that in Copenhagen they’re talking about record heat this year, while in most of the northern hemisphere we are having unusual cold and snow?

Hope this helps,

“Callirhoe”

 

[Callin]

Callin:

You know, in all these threads, I’m STILL waiting for some pro-AGW person to explain the number-fudging happening in these leaked programs and data. I was on the fence until I saw them with my own eyes, leaked from one of the institutions responsible for the three main global temperature datasets.

Still waiting…

When are those who believe in AGW going to answer this with some facts?

 

[Don_L]

For those naive enough to believe this is about climate control - read this article from China and realize it’s about the inconvenience of the God’s human creatures, with the full catastrophe - involuntary abortion and all else that follows the degredation of man, under the guise of climate change.

chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm

 

[vz71]

I trust the consensus of the world’s climate scientists, not a tiny assortment of mavericks.

OK, you want to rely on the consensus of what you believe to be the majority, that is fine.

Name them.

If you cannot, then I submit that you are not at all relying upon the consenses, but instead are relying on what others are telling you.

 

[Ender]

The thousands of stolen emails span more than a decade. Whoever stole them could only produce a handful of messages that, when taken out of context, might seem suspicious to people who are not familiar with the intimate details of climate science.

Here is a comment from one of your sources:

“At this time, there is no evidence that scientists “fudged,” “manipulated” or “manufactured” data. These unsupported claims, based on taking the emails out of context, are being promoted by long-time anti-science opponents of climate change legislation. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the University of East Anglia and Penn State University are separately looking into the contents of the stolen emails to assess these claims.”

Interesting … if there is no evidence of misconduct why would these organizations be investigating? You may not consider it proof but the evidence is undeniable. Well, irrefutable anyway, clearly some are still denying it.

"While the emails do raise some valid concerns about scientific integrity, the email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised."

There is more than a little scrambling going on when in two consecutive paragraphs it is alleged both that there is no evidence of scientific malpractice and that concerns about it may be valid.

I trust the consensus of the world’s climate scientists, not a tiny assortment of mavericks. In the face of inexorably rising global mean temperatures, the burden is on you to prove that this is nothing toe be concerned about.

Under the circumstances it seems more appropriate to suggest that the burden of proof lies with those who claim that global mean temperatures are even rising. I never accepted that CO2 was the cause of global warming even as I accepted that warming was occurring, but in light of the recent disclosures I am no longer sure that there has been any meaningful warming at all.

Raw data from New Zealand shows no warming; only the “adjusted” data shows warming. The same appears to be true for the data from Australia. The keepers (aka the adjusters) of the US data won’t release the unadjusted numbers and the CRU destroyed their data. Until the real data is released along with an explanation for any adjustments being made there is no reason to accept their conclusions. “Trust me” is not part of the scientific process.

Ender

 

[spn82756]

I trust the consensus of the world’s climate scientists, not a tiny assortment of mavericks. In the face of inexorably rising global mean temperatures, the burden is on you to prove that this is nothing toe be concerned about.

I’m sorry St…the majority of scientists do NOT feel there is any anthropogenic climatic warming. It’s a hoax. I would hope that being a 30 year career meteorologist with friends in the international theater would carry at least an ounce of weight.

How about trying the website www.icecap.us or perhaps reading the book “The Satanic
Gasses”.

As one well known meteorologist in the south put it… “the only scientists that believe in global warming are those whose pockets it lines”.

 

[StAnastasia]

I’m sorry St…the majority of scientists do NOT feel there is any anthropogenic climatic warming. It’s a hoax. I would hope that being a 30 year career meteorologist with friends in the international theater would carry at least an ounce of weight.

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

 

[vz71]

– despite the fact that a hundred thousand biologists premise their work on it.

Wow. That’s a really big number.

I guess they must be right.

 

[4elise]

IMHO It is a shame. A shame that you try to us the Vatican to bolster your argument.
1 The Vatican depends on the same scandalous fabricated data.
2 the Vatican NOR this good Priest conclude or address co2 as the culprit of Climate Change…when people try to put words into the Vatican we end up with other Churches.
3 The Vatican is clearly calling uss to be good stewards…but is not attributing climate change to AGW .

We ALL have been lied to…IS the FACT

1. The article was the full article from Zenit
2. I added only that I agreed with the content of the article with my resounding AMEN (not sure WHAT words you are saying I put in the Vatican’s mouth?)
3. The Vatican is now and always calling us to be good stewards of creation

You may not agree with Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office, and his analysis of the ethical implications of the U.N. conference - but simply stating that the Vatican too has been duped and you have the facts - well I find easier to agree with the Vatican than with you in all honesty; This time the emphasis is mine

1. The elements that have led to this week’s U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen must also be a call to lifestyle conversion,
2. "The alteration of the atmosphere’s composition, the increase of sea levels, the reduction of unpolluted fresh water reserves, the change in precipitation and hurricanes, soil erosion and desertification, damage to agriculture and human health. … And all of this fundamentally largely depends on human behavior and decisions."
3. “the Copenhagen conference on climate **will be considered a success or a failure according to the commitments that the governments will take on, **above all those of the most powerful and largest countries. The ‘magic’ numbers on the reductions of harmful gas emissions and the funding to be procured will be pronounced.”

or

1. “But,in the end everything will depend on the sum of each of our actions, [we] inhabitants of the earth, too used to thinking ourselves clever in shifting the responsibility on others.”

FROM THE VATICAN:

zenit.org/article-27758?l=english

ZE09120605 - 2009-12-06
Permalink: zenit.org/article-27758?l=english
Aide: Climate Change Talks Must Affect Our Lives

Spokesman Notes Ethical Implications of Copenhagen Conference

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 6, 2009 (Zenit.org).- **The elements that have led to this week’s U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen must also be a call to lifestyle conversion, **according to a Vatican spokesman.

On the most recent edition of Vatican Television’s “Octava Dies,” Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, analyzed the ethical implications of the Dec. 7-18 U.N. conference.

The priest proposed that “some time ago environmental and climate concerns seemed to many to be a luxury – worries for the rich. The concerns of the poor, who had to survive and meet basic needs, were different.”

But then, he said, "We understood that things were not quite that way.

“When there is drought or when there are environmental catastrophes, the poor are the first to suffer and die. Those who are in safer places or who have more resources for food or protection can better survive the worst environmental conditions.”

Thus, the spokesman asserted, caring for the health of the planet is something that must be done for everyone, and first of all, for the poor.

“The planet is like an organism in which imbalances reflect on each other,” Father Lombardi illustrated. "The alteration of the atmosphere’s composition, the increase of sea levels, the reduction of unpolluted fresh water reserves, the change in precipitation and hurricanes, soil erosion and desertification, damage to agriculture and human health. … And all of this fundamentally largely depends on human behavior and decisions."

Our problem too

The Vatican spokesman observed that "the Copenhagen conference on climate will be considered a success or a failure according to the commitments that the governments will take on, above all those of the most powerful and largest countries. The ‘magic’ numbers on the reductions of harmful gas emissions and the funding to be procured will be pronounced."

"But," the Jesuit affirmed, "in the end everything will depend on the sum of each of our actions, [we] inhabitants of the earth, too used to thinking ourselves clever in shifting the responsibility on others."

Referencing Benedict XVI’s “Caritas in Veritate,” Father Lombardi proposed “new lifestyles” and noted that “the ecological system depends on a good relationship between man and nature but also on his relationship with other men.”

“So,” he concluded, “Copenhagen’s problem is our problem too.”

 

[kimmielittle]

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

Well much that was sold the public about evolution has been a hoax now, hasn’t it?

IMHO This is a shameless bid…here is what the consensus of professional climate scientists on the matter of climate change say…“Climate Changes” …They do not agree that it’s man made…AGW

 

[StAnastasia]

Wow. That’s a really big number. I guess they must be right.

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

 

[StAnastasia]

Well much that was sold the public about evolution has been a hoax now, hasn’t it?

No.

 

[4elise]

Well much that was sold the public about evolution has been a hoax now, hasn’t it?

IMHO This is a shameless bid

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.

Blessings,

 

[kimmielittle]

No.

Oh, come on…Every other find is “The Lost Link”…

Evolution is complicated. If you call it the progression of Simple to Complex organisms, a Biologist will tell you that’s not exactly true. If you say it’s survival of the fittest, a Biologist will tell you that this is only one of several mechanisms. If you call it a fact, a Biologist will point out that it’s also a theory. If you say it’s a theory, a Biologist will point out that it’s also a fact.

The fact remains that; a Scientific Explanation can only be as simple as Nature allows. AND Nature is far from Simple OR definable.

Scientifically, Nature is an undefinable element, and very elusive, at this time.

It is up to Science to first prove the claim.

As always,just my thoughts

BUT this isn’t an evolution Thread

 

[kimmielittle]

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.

Blessings,

Hiyas
Here is the problem as many see it…The idea that because we don’t believe in AGW …we aren’t environmentalist.

 

[StAnastasia]

Oh, come on…Every other find is “The Lost Link”…Evolution is complicated. If you call it the progression of Simple to Complex organisms, a Biologist will tell you that’s not exactly true. If you say it’s survival of the fittest, a Biologist will tell you that this is only one of several mechanisms. If you call it a fact, a Biologist will point out that it’s also a theory. If you say it’s a theory, a Biologist will point out that it’s also a fact.

I can’t go into this here and now, but you need to learn about the science of biology. Read some professional journals. Attend some conference of evolutionary biology societies. Do some original research. Ignore the anti-evolutionist “think” tanks.

 

[kimmielittle]

I can’t go into this here and now, but you need to learn about the science of biology. Read some professional journals. Attend some conference of evolutionary biology societies. Do some original research. Ignore the anti-evolutionist “think” tanks.

Here again, arrogance. Because I disagree…I must be ill- schooled.

“The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein