Climatology fraud, what will be their sentences?

[Old Rocks]

Goodness, you're just really not very smart.

I never said it was impossible that humans can alter the climate. I said AGW supporters have not proven their claim that we already have.

I believe I agreed with that line of reasoning, and agree with the the fact that it has not been fully substantiated. But what is your level of acceptable evidence? It would seem to me that you are nearly unwilling to accept such a reality should it be real.

IMO, every scrap of research and modeling thus far needs to be shitcanned. It's hopelessly flawed and distorted to fit the predetermined conclusion. Use data from EVERY temperature station, not just the ones in warm areas. Did you know there is only one station being used to represent all of Canada above the Arctic Circle? And it's in a warm spot.

For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that

It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.​

That’s because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages – which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out – will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped.

Overall, U.S. online stations have dropped from a peak of 1,850 in 1963 to a low of 136 as of 2007. In his blog, Smith wittily observed that “the Thermometer Langoliers have eaten 9/10 of the thermometers in the USA[,] including all the cold ones in California.” But he was deadly serious after comparing current to previous versions of USHCN data and discovering that this “selection bias” creates a +0.6°C warming in U.S. temperature history.​

There really can be no defense of this. It's simply bad science.

Bulldoze the whole mess and start all over. And don't let any of the crooks currently involved anywhere near it.

LOL Daveyboy, you are one gullible fool.

The Atlas of Canada - Weather Stations and Forecast Regions

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When the earth has an atmosphere that resembles the planet Venus..will you guys be happy?

I'll be happy when you're smarter than a 5th grader

 

[Old Rocks]

Corrupt Science : Evidence of Massive Climatology Fraud Exposed | ARCHITECT AFRICA | ARCHITECTURE

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

The Flathead Society - Page 1 - Cal Thomas - Townhall Conservative

Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming


The link below exposes the back door global socialism motive of the 'professional' environmentalists...

Global Warming Equals Socialism

I wonder what the legal sentencing will be for these criminals? The tax cost globally to the human community from their fraudulent back door global socialist scheme certainly has to be measured in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. This would make their crime the single biggest premeditated crime against all of humanity in the entire history of recorded human existence.
What would you expect for sentencing for this crime these people did to us???

Zippo.

I often wonder why the wingnuts think that scientific research into the unknown is tantamount to what you'd find in a crystal ball. Still, these are the same people who think creationism took place

AGW is not science. It's a religion.

You're criticizing the wrong people.

LOL. Daveyboy, once again you are showing your idiocy. You follow the rants of a obese junkie, and state that all the scientiists in the world are practicing religion.

Once again, old fool, name one Scientific Society, one National Academy of Science, or even one major University that denies the existance of AGW. Any one of these anywhere in the world. You cannot because none exists. This denial of reality is the work of idiots shilling for the energy company and ignorant dolts like you that understand no science.

 

[Old Rocks]

When the earth has an atmosphere that resembles the planet Venus..will you guys be happy?

I'll be happy when you're smarter than a 5th grader

At that point anybody would be 4 grades ahead of you, Frankyboy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When the earth has an atmosphere that resembles the planet Venus..will you guys be happy?

I'll be happy when you're smarter than a 5th grader

At that point anybody would be 4 grades ahead of you, Frankyboy.

You ever gonna show us that one repeatable experiment that demonstrates how a 100PPM increase in CO2 melts the ices caps, acidifies the oceans and melts the Arctic sea floor, Miss Cleo?

 

[Old Rocks]

Goodness, you're just really not very smart.

I never said it was impossible that humans can alter the climate. I said AGW supporters have not proven their claim that we already have.

I believe I agreed with that line of reasoning, and agree with the the fact that it has not been fully substantiated. But what is your level of acceptable evidence? It would seem to me that you are nearly unwilling to accept such a reality should it be real.

IMO, every scrap of research and modeling thus far needs to be shitcanned. It's hopelessly flawed and distorted to fit the predetermined conclusion. Use data from EVERY temperature station, not just the ones in warm areas. Did you know there is only one station being used to represent all of Canada above the Arctic Circle? And it's in a warm spot.

For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that

It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.​

That’s because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages – which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out – will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped.

Overall, U.S. online stations have dropped from a peak of 1,850 in 1963 to a low of 136 as of 2007. In his blog, Smith wittily observed that “the Thermometer Langoliers have eaten 9/10 of the thermometers in the USA[,] including all the cold ones in California.” But he was deadly serious after comparing current to previous versions of USHCN data and discovering that this “selection bias” creates a +0.6°C warming in U.S. temperature history.​

There really can be no defense of this. It's simply bad science.

Bulldoze the whole mess and start all over. And don't let any of the crooks currently involved anywhere near it.

Home

Surfacestations project reaches 82.5% of the network surveyed. 1007 of 1221 stations have been examined in the USHCN network. The Google Earth map below shows current coverage.

Dr. Muller in his BEST project examined the data and the interpretations of the data from the weather stations, and stated that the work done with the data by NOAA and others was exemplery. And the data definately shows a rapid and dangerous warming.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWPWr00k3FQ]Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Confirm It - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0nKdo4b1os&feature=related]A Skeptic Confirms Substantial Recent Global Warming - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

I'll be happy when you're smarter than a 5th grader

At that point anybody would be 4 grades ahead of you, Frankyboy.

You ever gonna show us that one repeatable experiment that demonstrates how a 100PPM increase in CO2 melts the ices caps, acidifies the oceans and melts the Arctic sea floor, Miss Cleo?

It has already been done on a planetary scale several times. P-T Extinction, rapid increase in CO2 and CH4, rapid increase in temperature, acidification of the ocean, an anoxic ocean, and a major decrease in atmospheric oxygen. Snowball earth periods, decrease in CO2 and the oceans freeze over clear down to the equator.

Here is chapter from Dr. Dorritie's book on methane catastrophe. Now I know that you will not read it, Frankyboy, but others, more intelligent, may want to see how that mechanism of extinction works.

Methane Catastrophe

 

[westwall]

So because we've never had a nuclear winter, it doesn't and can't exist?

Did I say that? Hint: No. Moron.

If there is a large scale nuclear war, the climate will be affected. But we haven't had one.

Now, can we deal with reality instead of more Chicken Little fear-mongering? Oh, sorry -- that's all you've got.

So we've established that humans are indeed capable of changing the climate in some form.

Now, why is it so impossible that there is no other way other than mass destruction in order for us to change the climate?

I'm just trying to get to the roots of this.

It is relatively easy to make the planet cold. Making it warm is orders of magnitude more difficult. You're a physicist, run some numbers....just how much energy would have to be created to raise the temperature of the planet one degree.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

At that point anybody would be 4 grades ahead of you, Frankyboy.

You ever gonna show us that one repeatable experiment that demonstrates how a 100PPM increase in CO2 melts the ices caps, acidifies the oceans and melts the Arctic sea floor, Miss Cleo?

It has already been done on a planetary scale several times. P-T Extinction, rapid increase in CO2 and CH4, rapid increase in temperature, acidification of the ocean, an anoxic ocean, and a major decrease in atmospheric oxygen. Snowball earth periods, decrease in CO2 and the oceans freeze over clear down to the equator.

Here is chapter from Dr. Dorritie's book on methane catastrophe. Now I know that you will not read it, Frankyboy, but others, more intelligent, may want to see how that mechanism of extinction works.

Methane Catastrophe

Did you not understand the question?

You ever gonna show us that one repeatable experiment that demonstrates how a 100PPM increase in CO2 melts the ices caps, acidifies the oceans and melts the Arctic sea floor, Miss Cleo

CO2 is not methane, you knew that, right?

 

[westwall]

True, but I was saying we have no evidence to prove the warming is in the normal range, which does not contradict what you are saying.

As I said, there is evidence that points to this warming to be outside the normal range, but (thought it seems likely to me) I have not seen what I consider to be absolute proof that that is the case.

Do we have to wait till we actually have a climate issue on our hands for it to be absolute? What's the limit? We know humans have a significant impact on climate, but what we don't know is if that impact can cascade to total climate failure.

I'm not on either side but the question needs to be asked.

Thank you. Yes, that question is being asked, and perhaps answered in a way not to anybodies likeing.

Arctic methane emergency

Methane catastrophe

Didn't happen the last time temps got this high and the current methane venting is due to sea water intrusion 8,000 years ago. Funny how your chicken littles don't mention that. I guess there's no money in the truth huh?

 

[westwall]

At that point anybody would be 4 grades ahead of you, Frankyboy.

You ever gonna show us that one repeatable experiment that demonstrates how a 100PPM increase in CO2 melts the ices caps, acidifies the oceans and melts the Arctic sea floor, Miss Cleo?

It has already been done on a planetary scale several times. P-T Extinction, rapid increase in CO2 and CH4, rapid increase in temperature, acidification of the ocean, an anoxic ocean, and a major decrease in atmospheric oxygen. Snowball earth periods, decrease in CO2 and the oceans freeze over clear down to the equator.

Here is chapter from Dr. Dorritie's book on methane catastrophe. Now I know that you will not read it, Frankyboy, but others, more intelligent, may want to see how that mechanism of extinction works.

Methane Catastrophe

No mass extinction has been tied to global warming except in the fevered imagination of AGW alarmists. Acidification is a complete joke. We could burn every rock on the planet and the net result would be to drop the oceans avg pH level from 8.1 to 8.0. Add to that the fact that all the critters that will supposedly die because of the acidification actually EVOLVED WHEN IT WAS 20X HIGHER THEN THE PRESENT DAY and it becomes painfully obvious (except to the science deniers) that acidification is a fraud.

Go figure.

 

[daveman]

I believe I agreed with that line of reasoning, and agree with the the fact that it has not been fully substantiated. But what is your level of acceptable evidence? It would seem to me that you are nearly unwilling to accept such a reality should it be real.

IMO, every scrap of research and modeling thus far needs to be shitcanned. It's hopelessly flawed and distorted to fit the predetermined conclusion. Use data from EVERY temperature station, not just the ones in warm areas. Did you know there is only one station being used to represent all of Canada above the Arctic Circle? And it's in a warm spot.

For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that

It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.​

That’s because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages – which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out – will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped.

Overall, U.S. online stations have dropped from a peak of 1,850 in 1963 to a low of 136 as of 2007. In his blog, Smith wittily observed that “the Thermometer Langoliers have eaten 9/10 of the thermometers in the USA[,] including all the cold ones in California.” But he was deadly serious after comparing current to previous versions of USHCN data and discovering that this “selection bias” creates a +0.6°C warming in U.S. temperature history.​

There really can be no defense of this. It's simply bad science.

Bulldoze the whole mess and start all over. And don't let any of the crooks currently involved anywhere near it.

LOL Daveyboy, you are one gullible fool.

The Atlas of Canada - Weather Stations and Forecast Regions

Which of those report to NOAA?

And nothing to say about just 4 stations for all of CA?

Remind me again -- who's the gullible fool?

 

[daveman]

LOL. Daveyboy, once again you are showing your idiocy. You follow the rants of a obese junkie, and state that all the scientiists in the world are practicing religion.

Once again, Roxy has to resort to lies.

I never said all the scientists in the world are practicing religion. Are you pretending all the scientists in the world support AGW?

Because that is simply untrue.

Once again, old fool, name one Scientific Society, one National Academy of Science, or even one major University that denies the existance of AGW. Any one of these anywhere in the world. You cannot because none exists. This denial of reality is the work of idiots shilling for the energy company and ignorant dolts like you that understand no science.

You really do believe science is a popularity contest, don't you?

Moron.

 

[daveman]

I believe I agreed with that line of reasoning, and agree with the the fact that it has not been fully substantiated. But what is your level of acceptable evidence? It would seem to me that you are nearly unwilling to accept such a reality should it be real.

IMO, every scrap of research and modeling thus far needs to be shitcanned. It's hopelessly flawed and distorted to fit the predetermined conclusion. Use data from EVERY temperature station, not just the ones in warm areas. Did you know there is only one station being used to represent all of Canada above the Arctic Circle? And it's in a warm spot.

For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that

It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.​

That’s because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages – which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out – will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped.

Overall, U.S. online stations have dropped from a peak of 1,850 in 1963 to a low of 136 as of 2007. In his blog, Smith wittily observed that “the Thermometer Langoliers have eaten 9/10 of the thermometers in the USA[,] including all the cold ones in California.” But he was deadly serious after comparing current to previous versions of USHCN data and discovering that this “selection bias” creates a +0.6°C warming in U.S. temperature history.​

There really can be no defense of this. It's simply bad science.

Bulldoze the whole mess and start all over. And don't let any of the crooks currently involved anywhere near it.

Home

Surfacestations project reaches 82.5% of the network surveyed. 1007 of 1221 stations have been examined in the USHCN network. The Google Earth map below shows current coverage.

Anthony Watts? Watts Up With That?

Oh, he's the guy you said is full of shit.

Another paper you didn't read. It doesn't say the data from the temperature stations is accurate.

Dr. Muller in his BEST project examined the data and the interpretations of the data from the weather stations, and stated that the work done with the data by NOAA and others was exemplery. And the data definately shows a rapid and dangerous warming.

Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Confirm It - YouTube

A Skeptic Confirms Substantial Recent Global Warming - YouTube

Yes, but the data is crap. The report you yourself just cited says it's inaccurate.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

In our system, you don't get sentenced to anything for being found guilty by the court of right wing nut jobs.

But Bush should face trial at The Hague for "war crimes" and for stealing elections.

Really? Why do you think that?

 

[westwall]

In our system, you don't get sentenced to anything for being found guilty by the court of right wing nut jobs.

But Bush should face trial at The Hague for "war crimes" and for stealing elections.

Really? Why do you think that?

What do you think of the GAO report?

 

[daveman]

In our system, you don't get sentenced to anything for being found guilty by the court of right wing nut jobs.

But Bush should face trial at The Hague for "war crimes" and for stealing elections.

Really? Why do you think that?

Bush was found "guilty" of those imaginary offenses by left wing nut jobs.

Did you criticize them as well?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

But Bush should face trial at The Hague for "war crimes" and for stealing elections.

Really? Why do you think that?

Bush was found "guilty" of those imaginary offenses by left wing nut jobs.

OK. Where?

 

[daveman]

Really? Why do you think that?

Bush was found "guilty" of those imaginary offenses by left wing nut jobs.

OK. Where?

Lefty echo chambers like DU, HuffPo, DailyKOS.

If you're going to claim that you never saw it, I'm going to laugh in your face.

 

[westwall]

Really? Why do you think that?

Bush was found "guilty" of those imaginary offenses by left wing nut jobs.

OK. Where?

Sooooo, what about that GAO report?