global warming naysayers miss the point...again!

I did Annie....doesn't change what I stated above, nor the information in my link (Did YOU read it?)...unless you can produce a quote that does. In the meantime, check this out:


1900 - Air Pollution

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/nojs.html


Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...ntarctica.html

1. I didn't change anything you said.
2. What data sources did PBS use?
3. NASA too has been implicated in the data problems.
4. You're posting multi-links to very long sites is not conducive to reading all. That doesn't indicated ignorance, nor disinterest, just choosing how to allocate my time.

What amazes me is that I believe that many that believed AGW theory, because they thought it scientific, haven't been the loudest critics of what was done to actually undermine the sciences. It shocks me, truly.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I did Annie....doesn't change what I stated above, nor the information in my link (Did YOU read it?)...unless you can produce a quote that does. In the meantime, check this out:


1900 - Air Pollution

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/nojs.html


Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...ntarctica.html

1. I didn't change anything you said.
2. What data sources did PBS use?
3. NASA too has been implicated in the data problems.
4. You're posting multi-links to very long sites is not conducive to reading all. That doesn't indicated ignorance, nor disinterest, just choosing how to allocate my time.

What amazes me is that I believe that many that believed AGW theory, because they thought it scientific, haven't been the loudest critics of what was done to actually undermine the sciences. It shocks me, truly.

In response to your numbered items:

1. I didn't say that you changed anything Annie....I said that the article on Jones doesn't change the points I put forth. What I stated was that if YOU can find something in that article that addresses (changes, refutes) what I stated, then please quote it.

2. Read the link, the source information is there.

3. Nice generalized accusation....can you prove it?

4. So let me get this straight.....unless information is capsulized into blogger bits and/or is of a premise that you don't readily agree with, you don't read it? And yet, you make sweeping condemnations and present an article that one has to READ thoroughly to understand. Bottom line Annie: you are admitting bias and trying to justify it. The whole controversy over global warming is determining a logical conclusion based on OBJECTIVE REVIEW OF ALL EVIDENCE. I have NO PROBLEM with rooting out bad science and such, but it seems you are of the mindset that fitting the science to the conclusion is the way to go. I read the material you presented, which is why I'm fit to respond to it.....if you cannot read the material provided to you in response, then your subsequent assertions and responses are essentially invalid. (the time it took you to type a response could have been spent reading the material I linked.)
 
Last edited:
In response to your numbered items:

1. I didn't say that you changed anything Annie....I said that the article on Jones doesn't change the points I put forth. What I stated was that if YOU can find something in that article that addresses (changes, refutes) what I stated, then please quote it.

2. Read the link, the source information is there.

3. Nice generalized accusation....can you prove it?

4. So let me get this straight.....unless information is capsulized into blogger bits and/or is of a premise that you don't readily agree with, you don't read it? And yet, you make sweeping condemnations and present an article that one has to READ thoroughly to understand. Bottom line Annie: you are admitting bias and trying to justify it. The whole controversy over global warming is determining a logical conclusion based on OBJECTIVE REVIEW OF ALL EVIDENCE. I have NO PROBLEM with rooting out bad science and such, but it seems you are of the mindset that fitting the science to the conclusion is the way to go. I read the material you presented, which is why I'm fit to respond to it.....if you cannot read the material provided to you in response, then your subsequent assertions and responses are essentially invalid. (the time it took you to type a response could have been spent reading the material I linked.)

I disagree. I could bother posting multiple links to multiple articles that disagree with what you've stated. However, I haven't an interest in keeping you reading rather than responding. That was my point.

I posted one link that provided multiple links at that site. When you asked about medieval warming period, I referred you to the graph at site. That is all.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
In response to your numbered items:

1. I didn't say that you changed anything Annie....I said that the article on Jones doesn't change the points I put forth. What I stated was that if YOU can find something in that article that addresses (changes, refutes) what I stated, then please quote it.

2. Read the link, the source information is there.

3. Nice generalized accusation....can you prove it?

4. So let me get this straight.....unless information is capsulized into blogger bits and/or is of a premise that you don't readily agree with, you don't read it? And yet, you make sweeping condemnations and present an article that one has to READ thoroughly to understand. Bottom line Annie: you are admitting bias and trying to justify it. The whole controversy over global warming is determining a logical conclusion based on OBJECTIVE REVIEW OF ALL EVIDENCE. I have NO PROBLEM with rooting out bad science and such, but it seems you are of the mindset that fitting the science to the conclusion is the way to go. I read the material you presented, which is why I'm fit to respond to it.....if you cannot read the material provided to you in response, then your subsequent assertions and responses are essentially invalid. (the time it took you to type a response could have been spent reading the material I linked.)

I disagree. I could bother posting multiple links to multiple articles that disagree with what you've stated. However, I haven't an interest in keeping you reading rather than responding. That was my point.

I posted one link that provided multiple links at that site. When you asked about medieval warming period, I referred you to the graph at site. That is all.

Ahhh, but the difference is that I READ EVERTYTHING YOU PROVIDED. Then I put forth a statement and backed it with source material that YOU REFUSE TO READ.

You can blow all the smoke you want Annie, but by your own words you are putting forth a double standard. Therefore, I cannot hope to have an honest an rationol discussion of the topic with you. deny it all you want, but your personal rationalizations don't cut it with the logic of the printed word provided. So unless you're going to play ball fairly, I'd say we're done here.
 
Ahhh, but the difference is that I READ EVERTYTHING YOU PROVIDED. Then I put forth a statement and backed it with source material that YOU REFUSE TO READ.

You can blow all the smoke you want Annie, but by your own words you are putting forth a double standard. Therefore, I cannot hope to have an honest an rationol discussion of the topic with you. deny it all you want, but your personal rationalizations don't cut it with the logic of the printed word provided. So unless you're going to play ball fairly, I'd say we're done here.
No, by our behaviors we are known. I do not send you hither and yon to read for hours before responding. That is what you do and go into spasms when anyone who disagrees with you refuses to be so diverted. Now if someone agrees with you, no such admonishments from you.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Ahhh, but the difference is that I READ EVERTYTHING YOU PROVIDED. Then I put forth a statement and backed it with source material that YOU REFUSE TO READ.

You can blow all the smoke you want Annie, but by your own words you are putting forth a double standard. Therefore, I cannot hope to have an honest an rationol discussion of the topic with you. deny it all you want, but your personal rationalizations don't cut it with the logic of the printed word provided. So unless you're going to play ball fairly, I'd say we're done here.


No, by our behaviors we are known. I do not send you hither and yon to read for hours before responding. That is what you do and go into spasms when anyone who disagrees with you refuses to be so diverted. Now if someone agrees with you, no such admonishments from you.

Newsflash for ya, sweetie......during a discussion people refer to available information, documents, FACTS to support their viewpoints, assertions, beliefs. The whole point of the discussion is to determine a logical conclusion via comparison and analysis of the forementioned sources. That's how it goes...just ask any high school teacher. Anyone who refuses to read information presented by others is NOT acting in an honest and wise manner.


So cut the bullshit Annie......you're putting forth a double standard, plain and simple, and the chronological order of the posts shows this. Worse, you proudly profess a willful ignorance of information that you perceive will not serve your beliefs well, and then try to slander me when your folly is made evident.

Yeah, by your behaivor you're known as just another neocon parrot with delusions of being able to carry on an informative, rational debate...when the reality is that you don't dare have an honest review of all information availble, least that requires you to THINK beyond the neocon mantras and rhetoric. So repeat your BS ad nauseum, as it will only garner you a maudlin exchange with other like minded poseurs on these boards. In reality, you just couldn't prove your point in an honest debate. We're done.
 
Newsflash for ya, sweetie......during a discussion people refer to available information, documents, FACTS to support their viewpoints, assertions, beliefs. The whole point of the discussion is to determine a logical conclusion via comparison and analysis of the forementioned sources. That's how it goes...just ask any high school teacher. Anyone who refuses to read information presented by others is NOT acting in an honest and wise manner.


So cut the bullshit Annie......you're putting forth a double standard, plain and simple, and the chronological order of the posts shows this. Worse, you proudly profess a willful ignorance of information that you perceive will not serve your beliefs well, and then try to slander me when your folly is made evident.

Yeah, by your behaivor you're known as just another neocon parrot with delusions of being able to carry on an informative, rational debate...when the reality is that you don't dare have an honest review of all information availble, least that requires you to THINK beyond the neocon mantras and rhetoric. So repeat your BS ad nauseum, as it will only garner you a maudlin exchange with other like minded poseurs on these boards. In reality, you just couldn't prove your point in an honest debate. We're done.

No BS here, that's totally YOUR department. You are wrong about reading all available information. I'm not going to give you a list of 30 articles/studies disagreeing with you, you'd just turn around and give me 30 more in your point of view's favor. We both know where each other stand.

Now here is something interesting I came across today, from an interview of Phil Jones by BBC:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climat...ctually-admit-was-he-correct/?singlepage=true

There are comments on the points made by Jones, notice that there is no scavenger hunt for links:

Climategate: What Did Phil Jones Actually Admit? Was He Correct?
D'Aleo takes a look at Jones' shockingly candid answers to the embattled scientist's interview with the BBC yesterday.


February 14, 2010 - by Joseph D'Aleo

(Joseph D’Aleo is Executive Director of http://icecap.us, a former professor of meteorology and climatology, the First Director of Meteorology at the Weather Channel, and a fellow of the American Meteorology Society.)

Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the center of the row over hacked emails. The BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones yesterday, including several gathered from climate sceptics.

Here are some of the questions. Some of Phil’s replies were surprisingly candid. I will look at and comment on six of the 23 questions.

Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Phil Jones admitted the warming trends in the cyclical climate change we have seen since 1860 have been similar in magnitude. He provided these values for those periods:

Period Length Trend Significance

1860-1880 21 years 0.163 Yes

1910-1940 31 years 0.150 Yes

1975-1998 24 years 0.166 Yes

Jones left out 1880 to 1910, and 1940 to 1976, which both had negative decadal trends....

Skeptics of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) suggest that the official surface record paints a different story from the actual station records. To restore trust, should we start again with new quality control on input data in total transparency?

There is more than one “official” surface temperature record, based on actual land station records. There is the one we have developed in CRU, but there are also the series developed at NCDC and GISS. Although we all use very similar station datasets, we each employ different ways of assessing the quality of the individual series and different ways of developing gridded products. The agreement between the three series is very good.

That is because NCDC and CRU do not adjust for urbanization — even though Tom Karl, director at NCDC, suggested in a 1988 peer review paper an urban contamination of 3.73°C for a city of 5 million. Phil Jones himself, in a 2009 paper on China, found a countrywide urban contamination of 1C per century. GISS does adjust for urbanization, which results in much less U.S. warming. For the globe, their metadata base of station location/population is poor. And Steve McIntyre found they just as often adjust urban temperature trends up as down.

There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. … Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today … then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.

The Idsos at CO2 Science have done a very thorough job documenting, using the peer review literature, the existence of a global MWP. They have found data published by 804 individual scientists from 476 separate research institutions in 43 different countries supporting the global Medieval Warm Period.

Where do you draw the line on the handling of data? What is at odds with acceptable scientific practice? Do you accept that you crossed the line?

No answer. Matter for the independent review.

Anthony Watts, E.M. Smith, and I have shown in “Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception” that the surface temperature records leave a lot to be desired. Claims about global monthly and annual rankings, and that the last decade was the warmest ever, can be dismissed as folly.
 
Pajamasmedia.com/blog???


Holy crap! ROFLMAO!

Aren't these the same rightwing blogs that had you convinced Saddam was in league with al qaeda, was armed to the teeth with WMD, and was poised to attack us? Yes?


How about this Annie. Can you please provide me ONE SINGLE reputable and internationally recognized scientific organization - which presumably has more expertise in climate science than PajamasMedia/blog - that agrees with you that humans aren't contributing to climate change.

Just one. I'll accept the U.S. National Academies of Science, NASA, the American Geophysical Union, the National Atmospheric and Oceanographic Society, the Royal Society, the American Meterological Society, or any other reputable and internationally recognized scientific organization that has expertise in climate science.
 
1. Repeat yourself all you want, but the chronology of the posts shows how YOU avoided what Cypress stated...which essentially renders your assertions irrelevent. Your response was to him, was it not? So unless you're going to admit that you're using a standard lame neocon tactic of avoiding a point you can't disprove by foistering another avenue of discussion, you'll just have to settle for insipid stubborness.

2. Nice try, but it was YOU who hyped the one groups controversy as the be all end all. I never stated that there was an internationalin compiling raw data, so for you to state such is a lie....or you just don't comprehend what you read. And you seem to have a penchant for making these declarative statements that just don't hold up under scrutiny. Case in point:

1900 - Air Pollution

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/nojs.html


Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_antarctica.html

1) So bottom line is that you refuse to show how the discussion between Cypress and USFREE has anything to do with the points I made? That is what I thought. As usual, you have nothing to back up your idiocy.

2) No moron, you tried to make light of the fact that it was just ONE of hundreds of groups studying 'global warming' (now called climate change). I pointed out to you that there are THREE bodies that have compiled the raw data that ALL the OTHERS rely on for their 'research'. So when ONE of the THREE is shown to have attempted to silence critics AND destroyed its raw data... that is a big deal. Especially given the FACT that Hansen at Goddard has also been shown to repeatedly block attempts of FOIA requests. So that is TWO of the THREE that are suspect (at best). Add in the IPCC's 'mistakes' and any rationale person can see cause to doubt these flat earth chicken little fear mongers.

Side note... what is going on with the REST of the antarctic?
 
Pajamasmedia.com/blog???


Holy crap! ROFLMAO!

Aren't these the same rightwing blogs that had you convinced Saddam was in league with al qaeda, was armed to the teeth with WMD, and was poised to attack us? Yes?


.

Once again the poor little leg humper attempts to attack the source without even reading it....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

That is the link to the BBC's interview with Jones you fucking moron.

Now gumby... do enlighten us... tell us how the BBC is a right wing blog or some such nonsense. Or perhaps you will demonstrate that these are not Jone's answers?
 
Pajamasmedia.com/blog???


Holy crap! ROFLMAO!

Aren't these the same rightwing blogs that had you convinced Saddam was in league with al qaeda, was armed to the teeth with WMD, and was poised to attack us? Yes?


How about this Annie. Can you please provide me ONE SINGLE reputable and internationally recognized scientific organization - which presumably has more expertise in climate science than PajamasMedia/blog - that agrees with you that humans aren't contributing to climate change.

Just one. I'll accept the U.S. National Academies of Science, NASA, the American Geophysical Union, the National Atmospheric and Oceanographic Society, the Royal Society, the American Meterological Society, or any other reputable and internationally recognized scientific organization that has expertise in climate science.
Guess you missed the BBC? Also who was being interviewed and what he said?

In any case, I'll repeat, I'm shocked at how few of you superior intelligentsia have failed to focus on the fact that the scientists you've invested so many beliefs in, have not done likewise for the theory they and you purport to think is correct. One cannot wish an outcome in science, yet that is what they tried to do through manipulation of the data.

They are beginning to admit it. Read the BBC interview, critically.
 
Last edited:
Once again the poor little leg humper attempts to attack the source without even reading it....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

That is the link to the BBC's interview with Jones you fucking moron.

Now gumby... do enlighten us... tell us how the BBC is a right wing blog or some such nonsense. Or perhaps you will demonstrate that these are not Jone's answers?

The respected and non-partisan factcheck.org debunks your climate gate nonsense.

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/


the fact that you have no legitimate scientific organizations that agree with you, and the fact that your whole premise relies on a global conspiracy theory, which somehow you have figured out, but the US National Academy of Sciences has been fooled by, puts you in a league with 9/11 truthers and birthers. Crazy shit man. The fact that US freedom, Bravo, Meme, and Dixie are on your side should give you pause.

Carry on
 
Yes, interesting.....now all one has to do is find a medevil period that matches the artificial amounts of CO2 and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere for the last century by industry, and with the range of global deforestation and urbanization of our major land masses, and then you can rest easy that global warming is all a dastardly hoax in order for the socialist communist to rule the world!
"find a medevil period that matches the artificial amounts of CO2 and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere for the last century by industry" ???

The point is...we've had a mid-evil warming period even without the co2 and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere for the last century by industry....thats the point...a pronounced warming period without man's input....


I did Annie....doesn't change what I stated above, nor the information in my link (Did YOU read it?)...unless you can produce a quote that does. In the meantime, check this out:
So you post a link that claims A and Annie posts a link that claims B...so what? Whats the point? The one with the most links claims victory?
What Bullshit....
 
Last edited:
"find a medevil period that matches the artificial amounts of CO2 and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere for the last century by industry" ???

The point is...we've had a mid-evil warming period even without the co2 and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere for the last century by industry....that the point...a pronounced warming period without man's input....



So you post a link that claims A and Annie posts a link that claims B...so what? Whats the point? The one with the most links claims victory?
What Bullshit....

From the BBC interview:

There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.​

Understand what Jones is saying here: Where we have records--Europe, North America, and parts of Asia--they show that the Medieval Warm Period existed and was, in fact, warmer than current conditions. In the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere, however, "There are very few palaeoclimatic records." That's true. Why? Because the Southern Hemisphere and the tropical regions are mostly water. The Earth's land mass is concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere. Currently we can track ocean temperatures, but for obvious reasons there is no way to reconstruct marine temperatures from 1,000 years ago. Jones concludes that we can't "make the assumption" that global temperatures were equally as elevated in the areas for which we have no records. A more honest assessment would be that we may never know for sure, but all indications are that the MWP was indeed warmer than our current climate.

Of course, Jones and his fellow alarmists do indeed "make assumptions" every time they produce a chart that purports to show what global temperatures were 1,000 years ago. In those charts, they consistently rely on computer models to minimize the MWP in a manner that contradicts what we know about actual land temperatures at the time.
 
The respected and non-partisan factcheck.org debunks your climate gate nonsense.

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/


the fact that you have no legitimate scientific organizations that agree with you, and the fact that your whole premise relies on a global conspiracy theory, which somehow you have figured out, but the US National Academy of Sciences has been fooled by, puts you in a league with 9/11 truthers and birthers. Crazy shit man. The fact that US freedom, Bravo, Meme, and Dixie are on your side should give you pause.

Carry on

You truly have your head buried up the asses of your fear mongering champions of global warming/climate change.

READ HANSENS QUOTES YOU FUCKING MORON.

As for 'factcheck.org'... they are not scientists... they simply pulled quotes from JOURNALISTS and so called 'scientists' who are trying to protect their precious money flow.

Again....

FACT...

1) The IPCC published completely bogus material in their report despite proclaiming that everything is scrutinized.

2) The CRU destroyed raw data

3) Your factcheck article states that the information was 'hacked and stolen' which now appears to be false in and of itself.

4) Your factcheck site makes the proclamation that the IPCC report is not tarnished by this because they use information from many sources. (which is essentially the same bullshit excuse Tachi is spewing) The FACT is there are THREE main sources for the collection of the Raw data. Two of which are tainted (at best). Those three are what those 'hundreds of other sources' rely upon for their 'research'.

But please, go back to burying your head in the sand.... keep shouting that the earth is flat gumby... I am sure Saint Al will console you when this all comes apart even further.
 
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html

It has been tough to keep up with all the bad news for global warming alarmists. We're on the edge of our chair, waiting for the next shoe to drop. This has been an Imelda Marcos kind of season for shoe-dropping about global warming.

At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.

ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

NONE OF THIS HAPPENED. NOTHING TO SEE HERE. MOVE ALONG. THE EARTH IS FLAT. SO SAYETH CYPRESS AND TACHI
 
And now its time for TC to declare grass really is green and point out you're a willfully ignorant neocon and you need to read his links to far left "links for assholes" websites to get educated AND don't forget, "reviewing the chronology of the posts" is also very important......its kinda standard procedure for him/it.
 
Guess you missed the BBC? Also who was being interviewed and what he said?

In any case, I'll repeat, I'm shocked at how few of you superior intelligentsia have failed to focus on the fact that the scientists you've invested so many beliefs in, have not done likewise for the theory they and you purport to think is correct. One cannot wish an outcome in science, yet that is what they tried to do through manipulation of the data.

They are beginning to admit it. Read the BBC interview, critically.

Looks like others agree that I am right to be shocked, including the following writer, who thinks AGW is real. She's not a scientist, anymore than most of you I'd assume, however she is a law professor and like any that have gone through university, (including myself), has at least a basic understanding of scientific method:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/02/admissions-will-be-seized-on-by.html

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2010

"The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws..."

"... at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made."

Huh? Why would it just be skeptics who would be interested in evidence of serious flaws in the science? I'm amazed by paragraph 6 of an article that begins:

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.​

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Everyone should perceive flaws! To talk about "sceptics" as the ones who will "seize" upon "evidence" of flaws is unwittingly to make global warming into a matter of religion and not science. It's not the skeptics who look bad. "Seize" sounds willful, but science should motivate us to grab at evidence. It's the nonskeptics who look bad. It's not science to be a true believer who wants to ignore new evidence. It's not science to support a man who has the job of being a scientist but doesn't adhere to the methods of science.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
1. Repeat yourself all you want, but the chronology of the posts shows how YOU avoided what Cypress stated...which essentially renders your assertions irrelevent. Your response was to him, was it not? So unless you're going to admit that you're using a standard lame neocon tactic of avoiding a point you can't disprove by foistering another avenue of discussion, you'll just have to settle for insipid stubborness.

2. Nice try, but it was YOU who hyped the one groups controversy as the be all end all. I never stated that there was an internationalin compiling raw data, so for you to state such is a lie....or you just don't comprehend what you read. And you seem to have a penchant for making these declarative statements that just don't hold up under scrutiny. Case in point:

1900 - Air Pollution

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/nojs.html


Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...ntarctica.html

1) So bottom line is that you refuse to show how the discussion between Cypress and USFREE has anything to do with the points I made? That is what I thought. As usual, you have nothing to back up your idiocy.

2) No moron, you tried to make light of the fact that it was just ONE of hundreds of groups studying 'global warming' (now called climate change). I pointed out to you that there are THREE bodies that have compiled the raw data that ALL the OTHERS rely on for their 'research'. So when ONE of the THREE is shown to have attempted to silence critics AND destroyed its raw data... that is a big deal. Especially given the FACT that Hansen at Goddard has also been shown to repeatedly block attempts of FOIA requests. So that is TWO of the THREE that are suspect (at best). Add in the IPCC's 'mistakes' and any rationale person can see cause to doubt these flat earth chicken little fear mongers.

Side note... what is going on with the REST of the antarctic?

1. You responded to Cypress and that is what I called you on. Next time if you just want to cluck in unison with Freedumb, then respond to his post. Bottom line: you were responding to Cypress' immediate point, and in doing so you tried to discredit him WITHOUT dealing with what was stated in that particular post. Now you're too much of a coward to concede that small point. Babble on.

2. Stop lying...the posts show that I stated no such thing that you accuse me of. I'm very specific in what I'm responding to and stating/asserting. "All others" DO NOT rely on the research of this one group that's under controversial scrutiny....that is a LIE that you and other neocon deniers just love to repeat ad nauseum in various ways, but are unable to factually prove beyond vague generalizations, suppositions and conjecture. Case in point, the information provided by PBS is NOT based on what you state, nor is the NASA information. Seems your blowing a lot of smoke, as usual.

Side note.....I notice you once again DON'T acknowledge or address the information presented, but dodge with a generalized question. Typical neocon denier bluff. Next, you'll just pile on the false accusations, state that your questions supersede all, throw in more links, etc. etc. Unless you can do better, there's no point in my further responses.
 
Back
Top