Climategate.com exposed as fraud!!!!!!!!!!!!111

[Meister]

Dry feet still, anyone with some wet feet?

I don't want to hear any wetback jokes.....I've heard them all.

 

[DiveCon]

That might be a sign of global warming.

we just got a couple inches of snow

must be global warming also

 

[edthecynic]

Well he did say from direct instrument measurements. For example ...



U.S. Climate Data Compromised by Sensors' Proximity to Heat Sources

A critical cog in the machinery that drives the theory of global warming may be compromised, as temperature sensors across the U.S. appear to be exposed to heat sources that some critics say is corrupting their information.


For the past three years, a group of zealous laymen has visited and photographed nearly every one of the weather stations to determine whether they have been placed properly. And what they found is a stunning disregard for the government's own rules: 90 percent of the sensors are too close to potential sources of heat to pass muster, including some very odd sources indeed

"Some critics" but no real scientists.

Thank you for showing a denier's complete ignorance of why real scientists use ANOMALIES to calculate warming or cooling trends.

Do you even KNOW what an anomaly is?????????

Why do you make a comment on anomalies when the response demands a comment on the legitimacy of the temperature stations? No matter if the goal is an accurate anomaly or an accurate temperature reading, if the data is wrong, it's wrong.

Obviously you had no idea what an anomaly is and lack the curiosity to find out before you made a fool of yourself again. The comment on anomalies completely addresses the legitimacy of the temp stations!

Whether the station is near a heat or cold source is meaningless when using anomalies. The temp data is collected for 30 years and that data is then averaged. The current temp is then compared to that AVERAGE and the anomaly is then calculated from the deviation from that AVERAGE. If the station is near a heat source the 30 year AVERAGE for that station will be higher, but the deviation from that higher average will accurately show whether there was a warming or cooling trend.

Obviously the anomaly METHOD is quite accurate since the ground station anomalies match the data from satellites which certainly are not near any heat sources! See for yourself.

 

[edthecynic]

Do you even KNOW what an anomaly is?????????

According to the CRU, an anomaly is how they can't explain that no warming has occurred since 1995 and how their models can't handle the Medieval Warming Period.

Keep parroting those GOP hate media lies, they really make you look BRILLIANT.

Since it has warmed +0.12C per decade since 1995 it sure would be hard to explain how +.12 can equal 0!!!

And since there is not one iota of proof the MWP was global it would be truly moronic to expect it to be included in a GLOBAL model.

Yeah, you sure are BRILLIANT.

 

[Xenophon]

Still not underwater.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Warming and cooling have both occurred throughout the planetary record. In every example, CO2 has changed as a result of the temperature changing.

During this interglacial, we are enjoying a temperature varience of about 2 degrees and are currently smack dab in the middle of that varience.

It is apparent that it has been at least this warm and the overwhelming body of evidence suggest much warmer, during this interglacial. We are moving in halting steps toward that temperature high which is lower than any of the previous interglacial highs.

This warming is not unprecedented and not unusual.

The warming we are talking about totals 0.7 degrees across 2000 years. That is not runaway warming. It is astonishing stability. If you'd rather, we can reach back 1000 years and find that warming has produced a 0.3 degree rise to date. 8000 years shows a 1.0 degree fall.

Those are the facts left out by the AGW alarmists and those are the facts that add perspective to this debate. These facts pull the rug out from any urge to panic and that is why they are left out.

It is the AGW Proponents that need to prove their case. Those who doubt their case are not burdened with any onis in this. We only await the proof that never comes.

If you have proof, you are free to present it.

None of your above OPINIONS are proven. Only people who see what they want to see, see temp leading CO2 the same way you saw SURFACE dust as dust in the AIR on Mars.

The only thing you have to base your temp claims on is PROXY data, and proxy data has been shown to be in error where it overlaps direct instrument measurement. Not only that, the proxy data comes from very limited areas of the globe so no global conclusions can be honestly drawn from the very limited data. But that doesn't stop deniers from drawing the conclusions they want in order to muddy the waters.

So instead of using science, what do you suggest?

Probably,

the funniest part that the nutroots refuse to acknowledge-

You can run regression analysis all day long- it means nothing when their is no real peer review and all the data is garbage -

It is a classic case of "Garbage In- Garbage Out". Of course, to be fair, this is all we are getting from the current administration- so they are use to it.

Did you know

In February one of the chief scientists at the center of the “Climategate” scandal admitted that there had been NO significant global warming in the last 15 years. (the article is from the UK; but I am sure it is still part of the GOP Hate Media, just like the Guardian article I linked to earlier)


Also from that article:
* The data for the vital ‘hockey stick graph’ had gone missing
* There had been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before – but NOT due to man-made changes

Of course, the nutroots refuse to let go - Must be part of that "Dope and Change" we hear so much about

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another good read for you on how the nutroots do not need real facts for their cause or part of the "Dope and Change" :


Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data

Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold has been forced to admit that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030, in a crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement.

In an interview with the BBC’s Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Leipold initially attempted to evade the question but was ultimately forced to admit that Greenpeace had made a “mistake” when it said Arctic ice would disappear completely in 20 years. The claim stems from a July 15 Greenpeace press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” in which it is stated that global warming will lead to an ice-free Arctic by 2030.

However, Leipold made no apologies for Greenpeace’s tactic of “emotionalizing issues” as a means of trying to get the public to accept its stance on global warming.








Oh I believe, you will find this "graph" interesting,

Here’s the most accurate global warming graph ever constructed. Ever. (CLICK TO ENLARGE.) Congrats to Zombie over at Pajamas Media for sharing the results of this peer-reviewed scientific study. It was peer-reviewed, wasn’t it?



Source: Pajamas Media

 

[code1211]

"Some critics" but no real scientists.

Thank you for showing a denier's complete ignorance of why real scientists use ANOMALIES to calculate warming or cooling trends.

Do you even KNOW what an anomaly is?????????

Why do you make a comment on anomalies when the response demands a comment on the legitimacy of the temperature stations? No matter if the goal is an accurate anomaly or an accurate temperature reading, if the data is wrong, it's wrong.

Obviously you had no idea what an anomaly is and lack the curiosity to find out before you made a fool of yourself again. The comment on anomalies completely addresses the legitimacy of the temp stations!

Whether the station is near a heat or cold source is meaningless when using anomalies. The temp data is collected for 30 years and that data is then averaged. The current temp is then compared to that AVERAGE and the anomaly is then calculated from the deviation from that AVERAGE. If the station is near a heat source the 30 year AVERAGE for that station will be higher, but the deviation from that higher average will accurately show whether there was a warming or cooling trend.

Obviously the anomaly METHOD is quite accurate since the ground station anomalies match the data from satellites which certainly are not near any heat sources! See for yourself.

You can't really think what you just posted makes any sense.

Please recall that the ground station data is adjusted, averaged, adjusted again and the retrospectively adjusted again. If it's so good, why is it adjusted?

 

[edthecynic]

Why do you make a comment on anomalies when the response demands a comment on the legitimacy of the temperature stations? No matter if the goal is an accurate anomaly or an accurate temperature reading, if the data is wrong, it's wrong.

Obviously you had no idea what an anomaly is and lack the curiosity to find out before you made a fool of yourself again. The comment on anomalies completely addresses the legitimacy of the temp stations!

Whether the station is near a heat or cold source is meaningless when using anomalies. The temp data is collected for 30 years and that data is then averaged. The current temp is then compared to that AVERAGE and the anomaly is then calculated from the deviation from that AVERAGE. If the station is near a heat source the 30 year AVERAGE for that station will be higher, but the deviation from that higher average will accurately show whether there was a warming or cooling trend.

Obviously the anomaly METHOD is quite accurate since the ground station anomalies match the data from satellites which certainly are not near any heat sources! See for yourself.

You can't really think what you just posted makes any sense.

Please recall that the ground station data is adjusted, averaged, adjusted again and the retrospectively adjusted again. If it's so good, why is it adjusted?

You can't really think what you just posted makes any sense.

Please recall that deniers lie, play dumb, lie some more, play dumb some more, accuse everyone else of lying, play dumb again and finally lie again. If the ground station data that matches the satellite data is so bad, why don't you deniers set up your own ground stations, collect the data yourselves and then publish your own data?

Could it be you know it will match the ground station data we already have? Obviously YES!

 

[Meister]

Obviously you had no idea what an anomaly is and lack the curiosity to find out before you made a fool of yourself again. The comment on anomalies completely addresses the legitimacy of the temp stations!

Whether the station is near a heat or cold source is meaningless when using anomalies. The temp data is collected for 30 years and that data is then averaged. The current temp is then compared to that AVERAGE and the anomaly is then calculated from the deviation from that AVERAGE. If the station is near a heat source the 30 year AVERAGE for that station will be higher, but the deviation from that higher average will accurately show whether there was a warming or cooling trend.

Obviously the anomaly METHOD is quite accurate since the ground station anomalies match the data from satellites which certainly are not near any heat sources! See for yourself.

You can't really think what you just posted makes any sense.

Please recall that the ground station data is adjusted, averaged, adjusted again and the retrospectively adjusted again. If it's so good, why is it adjusted?

You can't really think what you just posted makes any sense.

Please recall that deniers lie, play dumb, lie some more, play dumb some more, accuse everyone else of lying, play dumb again and finally lie again. If the ground station data that matches the satellite data is so bad, why don't you deniers set up your own ground stations, collect the data yourselves and then publish your own data?

Could it be you know it will match the ground station data we already have? Obviously YES!

Who were caught in a lie???????
Let's be honest here, ed.

 

[boedicca]

That graph was based on cherry picked station data that supported the hard coded results the researchers wished to show. Stations that showed colder temperatures were excluded from the data set.

It was part of their way to cover up that they couldn't explain the lack of warming since 1995.

 

[edthecynic]

You can't really think what you just posted makes any sense.

Please recall that the ground station data is adjusted, averaged, adjusted again and the retrospectively adjusted again. If it's so good, why is it adjusted?

You can't really think what you just posted makes any sense.

Please recall that deniers lie, play dumb, lie some more, play dumb some more, accuse everyone else of lying, play dumb again and finally lie again. If the ground station data that matches the satellite data is so bad, why don't you deniers set up your own ground stations, collect the data yourselves and then publish your own data?

Could it be you know it will match the ground station data we already have? Obviously YES!

Who were caught in a lie???????
Let's be honest here, ed.

Deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH.

 

[edthecynic]

That graph was based on cherry picked station data that supported the hard coded results the researchers wished to show. Stations that showed colder temperatures were excluded from the data set.

It was part of their way to cover up that they couldn't explain the lack of warming since 1995.

Satellites do not cherry pick stations, and even deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH had to admit their own satellite data shows the GLOBE is warming at +.12C per decade since 1995. BTW, Spencer is Stuttering LimpTard's climatologist!!!

So no matter how many times you repeat the lie that there was no warming since 1995 it still will not be the truth.

 

[code1211]

Obviously you had no idea what an anomaly is and lack the curiosity to find out before you made a fool of yourself again. The comment on anomalies completely addresses the legitimacy of the temp stations!

Whether the station is near a heat or cold source is meaningless when using anomalies. The temp data is collected for 30 years and that data is then averaged. The current temp is then compared to that AVERAGE and the anomaly is then calculated from the deviation from that AVERAGE. If the station is near a heat source the 30 year AVERAGE for that station will be higher, but the deviation from that higher average will accurately show whether there was a warming or cooling trend.

Obviously the anomaly METHOD is quite accurate since the ground station anomalies match the data from satellites which certainly are not near any heat sources! See for yourself.

You can't really think what you just posted makes any sense.

Please recall that the ground station data is adjusted, averaged, adjusted again and the retrospectively adjusted again. If it's so good, why is it adjusted?

You can't really think what you just posted makes any sense.

Please recall that deniers lie, play dumb, lie some more, play dumb some more, accuse everyone else of lying, play dumb again and finally lie again. If the ground station data that matches the satellite data is so bad, why don't you deniers set up your own ground stations, collect the data yourselves and then publish your own data?

Could it be you know it will match the ground station data we already have? Obviously YES!

Again, if the ground station data is so good, why must it be changed so much?

 

[edthecynic]

You can't really think what you just posted makes any sense.

Please recall that the ground station data is adjusted, averaged, adjusted again and the retrospectively adjusted again. If it's so good, why is it adjusted?

You can't really think what you just posted makes any sense.

Please recall that deniers lie, play dumb, lie some more, play dumb some more, accuse everyone else of lying, play dumb again and finally lie again. If the ground station data that matches the satellite data is so bad, why don't you deniers set up your own ground stations, collect the data yourselves and then publish your own data?

Could it be you know it will match the ground station data we already have? Obviously YES!

Again, if the ground station data is so good, why must it be changed so much?

You have only the word of pathological liars that the data was changed even though these same liars also claim they have been denied access to the data.

So again, if the ground station data is so bad why does it match the satellite data, and why don't you deniers set up your own ground stations and publish the data?

 

[Si modo]

I think we need some sort of deprogramming therapy development for the warmist cult members.

Perhaps that therapy development could get funded.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I think we need some sort of deprogramming therapy development for the warmist cult members.

Perhaps that therapy development could get funded.

Do you think Papa Obama Care will take care of that?

 

[Meister]

You can't really think what you just posted makes any sense.

Please recall that deniers lie, play dumb, lie some more, play dumb some more, accuse everyone else of lying, play dumb again and finally lie again. If the ground station data that matches the satellite data is so bad, why don't you deniers set up your own ground stations, collect the data yourselves and then publish your own data?

Could it be you know it will match the ground station data we already have? Obviously YES!

Who were caught in a lie???????
Let's be honest here, ed.

Deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH.

Turn your page, and please share all the fearmongers names, they are the ones who started this with thier lies. Your a prize, ed.

 

[boedicca]

So no matter how many times you repeat the lie that there was no warming since 1995 it still will not be the truth.

Dude, even the CRU has admitted that there has been no warming since 1995.

 

[code1211]

You can't really think what you just posted makes any sense.

Please recall that deniers lie, play dumb, lie some more, play dumb some more, accuse everyone else of lying, play dumb again and finally lie again. If the ground station data that matches the satellite data is so bad, why don't you deniers set up your own ground stations, collect the data yourselves and then publish your own data?

Could it be you know it will match the ground station data we already have? Obviously YES!

Again, if the ground station data is so good, why must it be changed so much?

You have only the word of pathological liars that the data was changed even though these same liars also claim they have been denied access to the data.

So again, if the ground station data is so bad why does it match the satellite data, and why don't you deniers set up your own ground stations and publish the data?

GISS “raw” station data – before and after Watts Up With That?

GISS for June – way out there Watts Up With That?

Global Temperature Records – Above the Law the Air Vent

 

[edthecynic]

So no matter how many times you repeat the lie that there was no warming since 1995 it still will not be the truth.

Dude, even the CRU has admitted that there has been no warming since 1995.

Dude, that is a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is a lie, made up by premeditated liars, and spread by fools like you.

We were WARMING at a rate of +.12C per decade from 1995.

Please post this "admission," FOOL.