Antarctic ice reveals more about the consensus nonsense than the climate

[Markle]

Do you have evidence that data has been unjustifiably manipulated? The only thing we have EVER seen here is that you claim it is being adjusted to make warming look worse that that that is proof that it's unwarranted. The truth is that most of the adjustments have reduced the amount of warming and that all of that has been perfectly justified. Your argument here is the same massive conspiracy that your desperation has led you to - you have no real argument so you've made this one up.

Really and truly pathetic.

If you are as educated about Global Warming as you profess, shouldn't you know about these things?

As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.

14th February, 2010

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be.

WHAT????
[…]

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.

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

 

[Crick]

Your information is dated. The actual exchange went like this:

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
*************************************************************************************************
Since then, there have been numerous new records set for global temperatures. Perhaps it hadn't occurred to you, but that requires warming. The latest temperature graphs look like this:

Attempting to claim that there's been no warming marks YOU as the one who doesn't know what's going on. I suggest you catch up on your reading.

 

[Markle]

Your information is dated. The actual exchange went like this:

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
*************************************************************************************************
Since then, there have been numerous new records set for global temperatures. Perhaps it hadn't occurred to you, but that requires warming. The latest temperature graphs look like this:

Attempting to claim that there's been no warming marks YOU as the one who doesn't know what's going on. I suggest you catch up on your reading.

 

[Crick]

I give you GISS, NCDC, Hadley and JMA, all in near perfect synch and you think you can refute it with that RSS lower troposphere bullshit? Here's a comment from the man who actually created that graphic, RSS physicist Carl Mears:

"Mr. Cruz (and others who seek to minimize the threat posed by climate change) likes to cite statistics about the last 17 years because 17 years ago, the Earth was experiencing a large ENSO [El Nino-Southern Oscillation] event and the observed temperatures were substantially above normal, and above any long-term trend line a reasonable person would draw. When one starts their analysis on an extraordinarily warm year, the resulting trend is below the true long term trend. It’s like a pro baseball player deciding he’s having a batting slump three weeks after a game when he hit three homers because he’s only considering those three weeks instead of the whole season.

My particular dataset (RSS tropospheric temperatures from MSU/AMSU satellites) show less warming than would be expected when compared to the surface temperatures. All datasets contain errors. In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset."

Ted Cruz says satellite data show the globe isn’t warming. This satellite scientist feels otherwise

 

[sartre play]

Above my pay grade, but something's going on.

 

[Old Rocks]

With no base data to compare it to, as a PROOF, your junk science cannot EVER be proven to be correct. Because charlatans accept it as true only proves how dangerous they are in the unending quest to manipulate research and peoples minds based on liberal bullshit. We only thought Magic and alchemy was bad.Now you use machines to fool people via the extreme complex nature of modern computer research to brow beat the layman.

LOL Just because you are too stupid too understand science does not mean the rest of us are. You said there was no way for anyone to know what the ocean temperatures were centuries ago. I showed you a couple of ways that they do that, and there are other ways, also. I am sure that you will never try to understand anything above third grade science. That is your loss.

 

[Old Rocks]

Do you have evidence that data has been unjustifiably manipulated? The only thing we have EVER seen here is that you claim it is being adjusted to make warming look worse that that that is proof that it's unwarranted. The truth is that most of the adjustments have reduced the amount of warming and that all of that has been perfectly justified. Your argument here is the same massive conspiracy that your desperation has led you to - you have no real argument so you've made this one up.

Really and truly pathetic.

Do you have evidence that data has been unjustifiably manipulated

I love it, you acknowledge the manipulation. hahahaahahha, oh, my signature can take care of that laugh.

He also acknowledged that data manipulation is "justifiable". That became abundantly clear after M.Mann`s email was hacked. After that all efforts to spin the CO2 into a yarn that can be woven into invisible blankets became futile. Nobody is buying !

Nobody but every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University. CO2 is a GHG, as is CH4. And both are affecting the climate as we post.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mod Note:

The topic of this thread has not been SEEN in 3 or 4 pages. Closing. Before someone pokes an eye out..