Is Global warming a Hoax?

[Darkwind]

I am looking for information regarding the scientists that collect data on Global climate temperatures. Is it true? Did they "FIX" the data? Why would they do something as stupid as that? Or is this an attack by the Right wing due to the undesirable effects of rampant regulations would cause to economic growth?

Is it real--Or is it fake?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o83XMMl9Yzc&feature=channel

Global warming may be real. The Earth does go through cycles.

Man Made Global Warming is fake. It is a con job to get power and money.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

You have half the scientists who say GW is real and the other half who don't and with no TRUE data to study, how the hell do you draw any conclusions???

Its worse than that. Both sides actively solicit folks with advanced degrees to sign petitions. That way they can say "X many scientists side with us on Global Warming."

The problem is that both sides actively solicit anyone with an advanced degree. I hold a Ph'D in Pure Mathematics. Nothing I have ever published or researched is in any way applicable to the Global Warming debate. Yet, I get cards in the mail asking me, Dr.Traveler, to sign their petition and support their cause.

Using my title in that way is immoral, so regardless of my opinion I toss those cards in the circular file. I have often wondered how many of those scientists that are pro-GW or anti-GW have actual research in the field.

 

[nodoginnafight]

There is sufficient evidence that the climate here on Earth has been trending upwards. There is a lack of evidence showing that actions on the part of humans are behind the warming.

I disagree. There has been a wealth of peer-reviewed science supporting the premise that human activity is playing a part. And not a shred to refute that premise. There is not consensus on the EXTENT to which human activity contributes but there is on WHETHER human activity is contributing.

Doesn't necessarily mean that the consensus is correct - but it does mean there IS consensus.

 

[Zander]

There is sufficient evidence that the climate here on Earth has been trending upwards. There is a lack of evidence showing that actions on the part of humans are behind the warming.

I disagree. There has been a wealth of peer-reviewed science supporting the premise that human activity is playing a part. And not a shred to refute that premise. There is not consensus on the EXTENT to which human activity contributes but there is on WHETHER human activity is contributing.

Doesn't necessarily mean that the consensus is correct - but it does mean there IS consensus.

The "consensus" was built on faked data. The entire AGW "peer review" system has been exposed as nothing more than a mutual "back patting society". Essentially researchers said to each other: "You back me, I'll back you." It is the AGW community equivalent of "REP" on this forum. It means nothing.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Time to create a Global Cooling Cult to counter the deranged Global Warming Cult kooks. We need balance. Balance is the key.

 

[nodoginnafight]

There is sufficient evidence that the climate here on Earth has been trending upwards. There is a lack of evidence showing that actions on the part of humans are behind the warming.

I disagree. There has been a wealth of peer-reviewed science supporting the premise that human activity is playing a part. And not a shred to refute that premise. There is not consensus on the EXTENT to which human activity contributes but there is on WHETHER human activity is contributing.

Doesn't necessarily mean that the consensus is correct - but it does mean there IS consensus.

The "consensus" was built on faked data. The entire AGW "peer review" system has been exposed as nothing more than a mutual "back patting society". Essentially researchers said to each other: "You back me, I'll back you." It is the AGW community equivalent of "REP" on this forum. It means nothing.

The consensus extends far beyond that and the data remains unchanged. Just some muddying of the water - just more oil/coal company fodder for them to fight with in their efforts to protect their gravy train - imho. But I'll watch the investigation.

 

[Ravi]

Apparently scientists that don't agree with the methods of the scientists whose emails were hacked STILL believe that humans contribute to global warming.

IMO, this is pretty much a no brainer. How could we not be affecting the earth's atmosphere with our polluting ways and deforestation?

Do the percolating data issues matter to the overall integrity of a) anthropogenic warming and b) “dangerous” anthropogenic warming?

A response has come in from Roger A. Pielke Sr., a climate scientist at the University of Colorado who has often been a critic of what he has called “the climate oligarchy” — including some of the scientists involved in the e-mail strings taken from the Climatic Research Unit. Aspects of his comment may be unwelcome to just about everyone in one way or another, but I think it is worth noting that he says that the data issues don’t detract from clear evidence of a long-term warming trend and that carbon dioxide is “a major climate forcing” (along with many others):

Natural Resources and the Environment - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[uscitizen]

Time to create a Global Cooling Cult to counter the deranged Global Warming Cult kooks. We need balance. Balance is the key.

Balance? Yes. The question to me is how much can the earth before a possibly delicate balance somewhere is tripped and then goes far beyond the trip point because of other side effects?

 

[keee keee]

Just another money transfer scam. Global warming is full of more shit than the Obama Presidency!!!!

 

[keee keee]

Should round up all those lieing fraud bastards and tar and feather them all!!! Starting with Al Gore the snakeoil salesman!!!!

 

[Zander]

 

[Zander]

 

[Zander]

 

[Zander]

 

[Zander]

 

[Ravi]

I notice that none of the conspiracy theorists bothered to comment on, and probably not even read, my post.

 

[Si modo]

The best scientific evidence very strongly suggests (but cannot prove without any shadow of a doubt) that climate change is real and that human activity is contributing. ....

No it doesn't. The state of the science does not allow for a conclusion one way or the other about the significance and magnitude of man's contribution to global warming.

This is the position of scientists who value scientific integrity BEFORE the email scandal.

 

[Borat]

Apparently scientists that don't agree with the methods of the scientists whose emails were hacked STILL believe that humans contribute to global warming.

IMO, this is pretty much a no brainer. How could we not be affecting the earth's atmosphere with our polluting ways and deforestation?

Do the percolating data issues matter to the overall integrity of a) anthropogenic warming and b) “dangerous” anthropogenic warming?

A response has come in from Roger A. Pielke Sr., a climate scientist at the University of Colorado who has often been a critic of what he has called “the climate oligarchy” — including some of the scientists involved in the e-mail strings taken from the Climatic Research Unit. Aspects of his comment may be unwelcome to just about everyone in one way or another, but I think it is worth noting that he says that the data issues don’t detract from clear evidence of a long-term warming trend and that carbon dioxide is “a major climate forcing” (along with many others):

Natural Resources and the Environment - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

everything affects everything. however the level of CO2 is determined more by the temperature itself than by human activity. and also the principal greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2.

the whole thing is a scam just like the war in Iraq was. and yes at some point maybe Saddam had some chemical weapons which we sold to him but fundamentally the war was a scam and run purely for profit. global warming game is also run for profit and is the same kind of scam where the media is used to make people believe utter nonsense. the fact that there is maybe somewhere some kind of an effect of humans on temperature ( say 0.1 degree in 100 years ) means nothing.

Bush made stupid conservative bitches EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED to the idea of war in Iraq. look out boys are dying for freedom ! ( haha ) for this reason conservatives can't understand that the war was a hoax. what ? what ? my son died in that war ! ! ! so it must have been for a good cause ! ( great logic )

similarly Gore made stupid liberal bitches EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED to the idea of global warming. oh no ! the polar bears are drowning ! nooooo ! ! ! so the liberal bitches fell into the same trap as the conservative bitches.

we libertarians are simply not numerous enough to be targeted by state propaganda. we get to watch the circus from the sidelines.

 

[Missourian]

of course there is a mass conspiracy among the vast majority of the worlds scientists to deceive the public at large...... and the proof of this is the implications of less than 15 people?

Jay, my understanding is the CRU massaged data, the data revealed in the e-mails, the data the scientists in question used their "trick" to "hide declines" was the same data all scientists were using in their predictions.

When I took science in college, we called this GIGO...Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Meaning if your model contains corrupted data, there is no escaping a corrupted result.

So, you may say, let's just compare the un-massaged data, the original data, the data that was requested under the Freedom of Information Act, the data that was referred to in the CRU e-mails discussions on how they could thwart that FOIA request....

Well...uh...you see...that data is missing.

Gone, erased, dumped, thrown away.

Convenient, isn't it.

Ever heard of a scientist THROWING AWAY THE RAW DATA !

Me either.

 

[Zander]

of course there is a mass conspiracy among the vast majority of the worlds scientists to deceive the public at large...... and the proof of this is the implications of less than 15 people?

Jay, my understanding is the CRU massaged data, the data revealed in the e-mails, the data the scientists in question used their "trick" to "hide declines" was the same data all scientists were using in their predictions.

When I took science in college, we call this GIGO...Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Meaning if your model contains corrupted data, there is no escaping a corrupted result.

So, you may say, let's just compare the un-massaged data, the original data, the data that was requested under the Freedom of Information Act, the data that was referred to in the CRU e-mails discussions on how they could thwart that FOIA request....

Well...uh...you see...that data is missing.

Gone, erased, dumped, thrown away.

Convenient, isn't it.

Ever heard of a scientist THROWING AWAY THE RAW DATA !

Me ether.

You are right. The process kinda looks like this:

Add in : destroy data that disagrees with premise, deride and ridicule anyone who questions the theory, make it a religious movement with a cult like following of unquestioning drones - then you have AGW!!