What would constitute proof tho? Trying to think of an example. We know ice sheets melting, we know species are dying off, we know carbin mix is growing.. My gut tells me that 7Billion people do have an effect on warming. i would be disingenuous if I didn't admit that.
Why oh why did you lie?????
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
What would constitute proof tho? Trying to think of an example. We know ice sheets melting, we know species are dying off, we know carbin mix is growing.. My gut tells me that 7Billion people do have an effect on warming. i would be disingenuous if I didn't admit that.
What species are dying off?
Lots, penguins, polar bears, trees in the northwest...
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I think it is likely that we do have some effect... however, the nonsense is in the claim that man is the primary driver of change. If this were so... then why was the medieval period warmer than today? Why was it warmer in 1998 than today? We supposedly haven't done anything to combat AGW, yet with a greater population today, somehow the temps are no longer rising?
Bottom line... we clean up our pollution and find ways to reduce the use of fossil fuels and we will back ourselves into reducing 'man made' warming if we are indeed having an effect. All this time and money wasted on seeing 'how much is man's fault' is pointless. It does nothing to address the problems.
When Scientists refuse to provide their raw data.... warning flag number one
When Scientists proclaim the 'debate is over'... warning flag number two
When Scientists get caught falsifying data (yes YOU HANSEN) and the politicians and media let him continue running Goddard... major warning flag number three.
When more Scientists get caught trying to falsify data... warning flag four
When they also try to silence critics... warning flag five.
If the data truly supported their theory, they would gladly provide the raw data so that it could be reviewed and critiqued. Instead GISS continues to refuse to deny access even under FOIA. Instead Mann and Company fight tooth and nail to keep their data secret. Instead we get them refusing to show how their 'value added' data was derived.
None of that is good Science.
This doesn't mean we are having no effect and I never meant to imply that. Just by paving over land to create a parking spot, we add to the surface temp.
The problem I have is with the nonsense fear mongering. If we are indeed warming coming out of the mini-ice age, then it is NATURAL for us to do so. If sunspot activity is diminishing, we SHOULD see a cessation in the rise of temperatures.
No i get that.. and just as much evil can be on both sides.. its a great disadvantage to us to sign onto a reduction promise if our competitors do now. Almost like a massive wealth loss to America regardless of if its for the benefit of mankind or just based on false data. I get that it could be the last nail in America's dynasty coffin.
BUT I do believe we are causing the problems.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
So are you saying the earth isn't warming?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The climate data coming of the CRU closely tracked two other independent sources. In order for the data to have been fraudulent it would have required CRU to keep very, very close contact with THEIR COMPETITORS. No scientist is going to do that. The first scientist who proved that the globe wasn't warming would receive massive benefits and would skyrocket to the top of their field.
People sometimes greedily sacrifice others for personal benefit, but they don't sacrifice others when it ROBS them of personal benefit. Don't you idiots know anything about the free market?
The only LIE here is you saying that data was manipulated. That has not been established at all, and to say it has is LYING.
People sometimes greedily sacrifice others for personal benefit, but they don't sacrifice others when it ROBS them of personal benefit. Don't you idiots know anything about the free market?
The only LIE here is you saying that data was manipulated. That has not been established at all, and to say it has is LYING.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Well the thing is, that if this data was faked, it would disprove GLOBAL WARMING, not JUST AGW. They are attempting to slay a much bigger dragon than just AGW, and are pretending like they're only problem is with AGW. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yet there is no evidence to support that belief. The AGW crowd does not have the data to back that up. Again, this doesn't mean pollution/deforestation aren't problems. I think the problem is in focusing on the non-issues.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No dear troll... that is not what I stated.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Again, you are saying that the data that proves global warming is fake. Not the models that take the effect of CO2 warming into account.
1. The Medieval Warming period warmed very gradually and cooled gradually after that, and so species had time to adapt and evolve to the higher temperatures. GW now is happening rapidly.
2. The main effect of global warming hasn't kicked in yet. Humanity has added about 0.3 C to the background heating due to CO2, and it's expected to go up about 5C in total.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
SF, you are saying GLOBAL WARMING data was faked, not the data that shows CO2 is rising, or the models that predict that as CO2 rises so will the temperature. This data is not used to specifically prove AGW, it's pure HISTORICAL temperature data. It has to do with all of GW, and you are saying it's faked.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I am saying they 'tweaked/massaged' the original data and then dumped parts of the original data which means their work cannot be checked without re-compiling the data.
I am saying that people like Hansen have been caught falsifying data multiple times and yet he kept his post at Goddard.
We are only warming 'rapidly' right now if you believe the data being presented by those who have been shown to falsify data.... (see Mann/Hansen etc...)
We are not seeing warming and have not over the past 12 years... which is odd (being kind) given that mankind is supposedly the driving factor to global warming.
If the Medieval period was indeed warmer than today... then why the fear mongering induced panic of chicken little?
Pollution is a problem.
Dependency on foreign energy is a problem.
Lets address the PROBLEMS and leave the fantasies and fear mongering for the extremists.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No I am saying the AGW data is faked.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
This is historical temperature data. If it's wrong, it would be evidence against global warming in general.
If you found that the predictive models had been faked, or that the greenhouse gas effect was a lie, that would be evidence against AGW specifically. But this isn't.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
CRU actually didn't collect most of the data themselves. They compiled data from other sources, and the reason most of this data wasn't open was because of non-disclosure agreements they had signed with the people who collected the data.
No, that's untrue.
Mann and Hansen aren't the only people who compile data. There are primary organizations that compile data. Any conspiracy between these three organizations would require the complacency of hundreds of competing scientists that would normally be at each others throats.
2005 was the hottest on record:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html
Anyway, this is just cherry picking. The current effects from AGW WOULD be expected to be small, and they are being overwhelmed by other, natural, factors that are cooling the climate, like El Nina and the sunspot minimum. The current El Nina is an unusually cold one, and the sunspot minimum is lasting longer than usual.
Because the current effects are expected to magnify themselves by several orders of magnitude?
Name-calling makes for a good conclusion.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
This report reaches strange conclusions. It says the Hockey Stick Graph was faked. That's not true. I think this reporter just makes shit up.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It's more complicated than he makes it seem:
On [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_12"]February 12[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005"]2005[/ame], Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper in [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysical_Research_Letters"]Geophysical Research Letters[/ame] that claimed various errors in the methodology of Mann et al. (1998). The paper claimed that the "Hockey Stick" shape was the result of an invalid [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_component_analysis"]principal component[/ame] method.[16] They claimed that using the same steps as Mann et al., they were able to obtain a hockey stick shape as the first principal component in 99 percent of cases even if trendless [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_noise"]red noise[/ame] was used as input.[17] This paper was nominated as a journal highlight by the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Geophysical_Union"]American Geophysical Union[/ame],[18] which publishes GRL, and attracted international attention for its claims to expose flaws in the reconstructions of past climate.[19] The IPCC AR4 says this paper may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small.[5]
And in the end the Hockey Stick graph was vindicated:
Congress was especially concerned about Mann’s reported refusal to provide data. In June 2005, Congress asked Mann to testify before a special subcommittee. The chairman of the committee ([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Barton"]Joe Barton[/ame], a prominent global warming skeptic) wrote a letter to Mann requesting he provide his data, including his source code, archives of all data for all of Mann's scientific publications, identities of his present and past scientific collaborators, and details of all funding for any of Mann's ongoing or prior research, including all of the supporting forms and agreements.[22] The [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Science"]American Association for the Advancement of Science[/ame] viewed this as "a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding."[24] When Mann complied, all of the data was available for McIntyre. Congress also requested that third party science panels review the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick. The Wegman Panel [25] and the National Academy of Sciences [26] both published reports. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) claim that 7 of their 10 findings in 2003 have been largely confirmed by these reviews.[27] Nature reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph - But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used." [28]
On [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_12"]February 12[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005"]2005[/ame], Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper in [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysical_Research_Letters"]Geophysical Research Letters[/ame] that claimed various errors in the methodology of Mann et al. (1998). The paper claimed that the "Hockey Stick" shape was the result of an invalid [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_component_analysis"]principal component[/ame] method.[16] They claimed that using the same steps as Mann et al., they were able to obtain a hockey stick shape as the first principal component in 99 percent of cases even if trendless [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_noise"]red noise[/ame] was used as input.[17] This paper was nominated as a journal highlight by the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Geophysical_Union"]American Geophysical Union[/ame],[18] which publishes GRL, and attracted international attention for its claims to expose flaws in the reconstructions of past climate.[19] The IPCC AR4 says this paper may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small.[5]
And in the end the Hockey Stick graph was vindicated:
Congress was especially concerned about Mann’s reported refusal to provide data. In June 2005, Congress asked Mann to testify before a special subcommittee. The chairman of the committee ([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Barton"]Joe Barton[/ame], a prominent global warming skeptic) wrote a letter to Mann requesting he provide his data, including his source code, archives of all data for all of Mann's scientific publications, identities of his present and past scientific collaborators, and details of all funding for any of Mann's ongoing or prior research, including all of the supporting forms and agreements.[22] The [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Science"]American Association for the Advancement of Science[/ame] viewed this as "a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding."[24] When Mann complied, all of the data was available for McIntyre. Congress also requested that third party science panels review the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick. The Wegman Panel [25] and the National Academy of Sciences [26] both published reports. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) claim that 7 of their 10 findings in 2003 have been largely confirmed by these reviews.[27] Nature reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph - But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used." [28]
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LOL.... non-disclosure agreements with the data sources? The data sources are all government funded. There is no reason for them to have non-disclosure. They are doing SCIENTIFIC research. The data is SUPPOSED to be open. They KNOW this.
actually it is indeed true.
You are correct... there are other groups that have data sets. Now tell me how many use the CRU data in their calculations.
seriously... you are going to quote data manipulated/massaged by Hansen as your source?
so says the fear mongers
sorry dear troll... It is sometimes hard to tell when you are trolling and when you are serious.