Climate Change V - More Evidence of Fraud

More evidence comes in that facts are/have always been irrelevant items in the “GlobalWarming/AGW/Climate Change” scam

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

"Forbes reports on a release of a new batch of emails where prominent climate scientists reveal that they actively deleted protected emails in an attempt to avoid releasing evidence that the data does not support alleged man-made warming. According to the Forbes report:
[i][b]Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:

(1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;

(2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and

(3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.[/b]"[/i]

The Fat Lady still ain’t finished singing about this global fraud… :sunglasses:

instead of focusing on the minutia of naysayers, why don’t you give the same credence to the mountains and mountains of positive evidence.

these tactics of willful ignorance are the domain of the conspiracy morons, do not be so simple as to apply their flawed methods.

or perhaps you don’t think all the shit we are pumping into the environment (in liquid, solid and gaseous forms) is a big issue. the fact that there is nary a metropolis with clean air, nary a river with drinkable water and a garbage collection the size of Texas floating in the South Pacific must not be a big deal to you. I guess it means nothing that we will be able to navigate the Arctic in the next decade, Bangladesh will lose a high percentage of its fresh water as salt water creeps into the delta due to rising tides etc…etc…etc…

keep highlighting the one or two areas that may be up for questioning, ignore the thousands upon thousands of areas where they nailed it. keep it a semantic argument, keep on truckin!!!

oh to be willfully ignorant!

[quote=“Deuce Dropper”]instead of focusing on the minutia of naysayers, why don’t you give the same credence to the mountains and mountains of positive evidence.

these tactics of willful ignorance are the domain of the conspiracy morons, do not be so simple as to apply their flawed methods.

or perhaps you don’t think all the shit we are pumping into the environment (in liquid, solid and gaseous forms) is a big issue. the fact that there is nary a metropolis with clean air, nary a river with drinkable water and a garbage collection the size of Texas floating in the South Pacific must not be a big deal to you. I guess it means nothing that we will be able to navigate the Arctic in the next decade, Bangladesh will lose a high percentage of its fresh water as salt water creeps into the delta due to rising tides etc…etc…etc…

keep highlighting the one or two areas that may be up for questioning, ignore the thousands upon thousands of areas where they nailed it. keep it a semantic argument, keep on truckin!!!

oh to be willfully ignorant![/quote]

Al Gore is my hero too.

Oh…and then there is this…

Sixteen prominent scientists publish a letter in WSJ saying there’s “No Need to Panic About Global Warming”
"[i]Signed by:

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.[/i]

the WSJ article is here

Oh, and they pretty much debunk all the CO2 nonsense…:smiley:

As DD just said, the “CO2 nonsense” is irrelevant anyway. Pollution and energy use in general are completely out of control. CO2 emissions are just one particular manifestation of that. If you’re looking for a hoax, the one-dimensional focus on CO2 to the exclusion of all else is it. Sadly, if policymakers were to focus attention back onto the more general issue of technology/energy misuse, the CO2 problem (assuming there is one) would resolve all by itself. It’s not something you can fix without addressing the underlying issues, as most “advanced” countries are now starting to discover after tipping billions into a well-intentioned black hole for the last decade or so.

[quote=“justreal”]

Al Gore is my hero too.[/quote]

thanks for posting, be sure to pick up your participation medal on the way out.
pats head
‘there there’

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]

Oh, and they pretty much debunk all the CO2 nonsense…:smiley:[/quote]

They debunk the CO2 “nonsense”, my my, thats impressive. Or it would be if there were any truth to that claim. :unamused: No surprise to see Richard Lindzen’s name on the list, he’s been arguing that the additional feedbacks from water vapor, which consitute the majority of projected warming is overstated for years, he does not claim Co2 is not going to cause warming and openly states it should have already done, only not at levels we should panic about. Your article even says as much.

I even linked to scientists on the skeptical side who state this is their position, including Richard Linzden. I’m not sure at what point the Republican party became one of anti science, it’s kind of embarrassing to watch and must be tough on politicians like Gringrich and Romney have to now appear to be stupider than they actually are, by dropping a chapter in a book and doing a change of track with regards climate change. Then again you dont know if you should laugh, cringe or cry when you hear such ignorance from supposedly intelligent people like Ron Paul say evolution is “just a theory”, (note, if the idiocy of that statement isn’t obviously apparent, please Google it, there are plenty of people who have gone into detail, describing exactly what a scientific theory is and isn’t. hint hint, it’s not the same as a wild guess).

What is truly amazing to me is not fox news’ ability to hoodwink texans into climate change denial heresy but how it manages to control the governments of canada russia japan india and china to derail efforts to fight the greatest threat to the planet. Given that acting urgently is of the essence I implore gore (like the jesse jackson rhyme?) To sell one of his three megamansions. They certainly cannot be good for mother earth. Funny gores name never comes up during protests of the one percent. Wonder why…

Most individuals, businesses and governments couldn’t give a fuck about climate change, over-population, or habitat destruction.

It’s difficult to see any kind of solution other than some forced Malthusian thinning of the herd. I’m banking on only the genetically superior surviving :smiley:

Mick -
Glad you agree with the nonsense of the CO2 scam.

As to:

I really fail to see the relevance of a comment such as this - except to reveal yet another attempt at diversion from the thread topic? Maybe its a subconscious thing - you don’t even know you’re doing it?
Bringing Ron Paul into this? Now thats just weird.

The flawed “science” just continues to be exposed. More full-disclosure of the emails of Michael E. Mann are being sought to show his failure to include all his research findings.

“The American Tradition Institute (ATI) is going after 12,000 emails sent or received by Michael E. Mann while he was on the staff of the publicly-funded university. Mr. Mann is famous for coming up with one of the “tricks” used to “hide the decline” in global temperatures. On Wednesday, ATI released a small selection of emails it hopes will convince a Prince William County judge that full disclosure of the rest is in the public interest.”

From the beginning it as been a funding scam based on incomplete research, unsupported conclusions and “academic” collusion. And along the way it has been converted into a “religion” that has made some people very wealthy
…algore.

EDITORIAL: Global warming’s ‘dirty laundry’ - University of Virginia should disclose climate emails

Excellent comments to this editorial. The lack of scientific method in the whole GW/AGW/CC thing is discussed…again.

TainanCowboy, I’m just curious as to why you’re hoping, against all the evidence, that’s it’s all a scam? Exactly how would it benefit you personally if world governments suddenly said, ah, sorry folks, as you were. All that pollution doesn’t matter after all. Carry on regardless.

Do you think, for example, that taxes would decrease? :roflmao:

Finley -
And I would ask you - Why are you assuming that those who have serious questions about the validity of the GW/AGW/CC fiasco are in favor of pollution - either air or water or both?

The Warmist argument has been repeatedly demonstrated to be based on money. Grant money, Institutional funding, “Contract” exchange buying/selling, “Credits” - buying/selling, fund-raising and a host of other affiliated activities that previously fell under them mantle of “Snake-Oil” sales.

Temperature rise halted about 1999 or so. The brief, in earth terms, rise was nothing more than a climate anomaly that happens with regularity. hat much has been firmly proven;ad was hidden/deleted in the warmist “research.”
Now, well for the last year or so actually, these records are being brought to public scrutiny.
And the warmist hysteria is being shown for what is really was - A scam for the money.

To attempt, albeit unsuccessfully, to link a non-warmist position (technically we are referred to as “deniers” - more religious sounding) to a view that favors pollution is to work from a false premise. Not a wise thing to do.

Why you want to read about “climate change” in magazine?
Just go outside and look at sky!
Or not go outside.
Because it always raining!
This is new bulls**t weather in Taiwan, rain every day.
Anyone not believe Climate Change I tell him come stay in Taipei.

I wasn’t. I was asking if you really believe it’s a bad idea to improve our low-efficiency, high-burn-rate economy, for it’s own sake, regardless of whether warming is true or not. That’s what your posts imply (and I notice you still didn’t disagree). If the “non-warmist” evidence is true (that is, if anthropogenic greenhouse gases do not affect the climate in any important way), of what practical use is that result? We’re still using fossil fuels at a much higher rate than we should, on things that we don’t need to use them for, and incurring all sorts of problems and costs by doing so. You might want to check out the history of the ozone-layer/CFC alert; that was a close call if ever there was one, and there was a 50/50 chance we would now be walking around in radiation suits. When someone raises the alarm, it’s usually not a good idea to waste too much time asking questions, just in case he’s right.

I agree. And it’s a bloody brilliant scam, because it’s so (apparently) easy for the average guy in the street to understand. That means you can turn him upside down and shake out his pockets and he’ll walk away and say ‘thank you, Sir’ to his masters, while they piss away his hard-earned cash on stupid schemes. They really hit the jackpot this time. But again, what does that have to do with anything? Why do you believe things would be any different if it were proven that greenhouse gas emissions were irrelevant? They’d simply find another scam to operate. “Foreign aid” is a reliable fallback. Or a a little bit of war.

Really? That has been firmly proven? No wonder you didn’t get why after your comment about how the scientists you linked to, had debunked the CO2 nonsense, (despite the fact they openly state it is a warming gas and has caused warming) I mentioned a comment by Ron Paul where he states evolution is just a theory.

Despite the last 10 years argument being faulty, usually misquoting Phil Jones, based on cherry picked dates, as well as a few other things which become less relevant since 2010 tied with 2005 as being the hottest on record.

If anything the science behind global warming is getting more solid and more accepted. But don’t let me try to spoil your illusion it will all come tumbling down…any minute now TC, the scam will be exposed in, well, haven’t you been saying that for a rather long time? Years? Decades? But I’m sure youre right, the theory of global warming will be exposed as a fraud and the world will see that you were right, any minute now.

Finley -

Nope. I am a steadfast advocate of research and use of what are now considered “alternate” energy generating devices.
I am pro-Solar, pro-Tide power, pro-GeoThermal and pro-wind power.

I even had my own wind-generator at my house back in the early-mid '8os. My PG&E electric bill was reduced to nil and even had credits to my account due to my low usage and electric power returned to the grid. Received a California tax-credit for installing that puppy.
So no, in my personal case, I am very in favor of improving the efficiency of existing energy technology while developing new devices and technology.

I am also pro-nuke and like big V-8 motors… :thumbsup:

Drill Baby Drill!… :discodance:

[quote=“Mick”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]Temperature rise halted about 1999 or so. The brief, in earth terms, rise was nothing more than a climate anomaly that happens with regularity. hat much has been firmly proven;ad was hidden/deleted in the warmist “research.”
[/quote]
Really? That has been firmly proven? No wonder you didn’t get why after your comment about how the scientists you linked to, had debunked the CO2 nonsense, (despite the fact they openly state it is a warming gas and has caused warming) I mentioned a comment by Ron Paul where he states evolution is just a theory.

Despite the last 10 years argument being faulty, usually misquoting Phil Jones, based on cherry picked dates, as well as a few other things which become less relevant since 2010 tied with 2005 as being the hottest on record.

But I’m sure youre right, the theory of global warming will be exposed as a fraud and the world will see that you were right, any minute now.[/quote]
Mick -
Its not just me, although you conviently frget to remember that all I ever wanted was correct and sufficient scientific data to confim the Warmist theory…which never was provided.

And then, there is this new item:

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012
“Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the
Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit.
It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.”

But wait…there’s more!

[i]"CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.
So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.

‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.[/i]

Still more…

[i]"Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997."[/i]

Whats that sound I hear?..is that a big OOPSY!

Also covered very nicely here:

Headlines over solar cycle 25 and potential global cooling

So now, we are back to…
[color=#0000FF]GLOBAL COOLING![/color]
Runaway! runaway!

(how very '70s…I hope this does not mean a return of Disco)

Ohhh, its absolutely true because I read it in the Daily Mail. :roflmao:

edit, But since you probably wonder if it could be actually true, not me just taking this piss out of the Daily Mail. The Met office already posted its reaction to the story. Seems they didn’t like it and were misrepresented by the Daily Mail. I’m shocked I tell you. Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012

Mick -
Not sure what you are getting at with your YT insert.
The scientists quoted are referring to the MET paper - not the Daily Mail article.

[quote]Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’[/quote]

Looks like more “re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.”


algore…huh?..algore…what?..algore…

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Mick -
Not sure what you are getting at with your YT insert.[/quote]

I was saying the Daily Mail is hardly the most accurate source of information. Both sides write slanted stories like this, sometimes you see over alarmist pieces, the Guardian despite trying to maintain this air of objective reporting often get the facts wrong and their green colour shines through.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]The scientists quoted are referring to the MET paper - not the Daily Mail article.
[/quote]

Yes, and I quoted the MET’s reaction to the article which was to call it a bunch of tripe, and to state the last decade has been the hottest on record and that temperatures have been increasing.

So whos wrong and whos right? The claim is there has been no warming since 1999, or perhaps longer depending on whos making the claim. Usually 1999 is chosen because 1998 was a record year, for one set of measurements. Not for for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, 2010 is the warmest year there, and 2005 the second warmest. If using those figures its pretty obvious there has been a positive trend during the period in question.

Global Top 10
Warmest Years (Jan-Dec)
2010
2005
1998
2003
2002
2009
2006
2007
2004
2001

I mean, seriously, if we use those 10 ten hottest years on record, who could hold a straight face if told, “there has been no warming in the past 10 years”, its the warmest period in history and last year the hottest of them all.

So how do the denialists get the idea, I mean there must be some truth, right, and there is. We need to cherry pick our date (1998), then cherry pick which data set we use (HadCRUT3), which doesn’t seem a very honest way of doing things but lets play along. Even then, prior to 2010 there was a trend, just it was not statistically significant (over that cherry picked period), after 2010 it did become statistically significant.

Then it boils down to the fact that on this set of data, there has not been a record year since 1998. Is that relevant? Yes, and the longer that goes on the more relevant it becomes, but dont forget this is not the only set of data. But don’t expect the “fiction” of global warming to collapse like a house of cards anytime soon, just saying, in case your getting your hope up, not this year or the next or for the foreseeable future. Sorry to disappoint. But no doubt certain blogs, certain papers will tell us otherwise.