Is Global warming a Hoax?

[Si modo]

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.

Not only that, based on the downloaded 'code' of the database, it is apparent that those managing the database were pressured into fabricating data when the database failed, and apparently that happened often.

So far, we have seen evidence of manipulation, suppression, and even fabrication of data. How anyone can trust it is beyond me. They need to do a complete audit of that database and extract whatever data they can. THAT is the data that should be analyzed, ALL of it and not the manipulated and fabricated data.

 

[Toronado3800]

Facts we all agree on:
In enclosed environment experiments those with higher CO2/greenhouse gas content experience higher temperatures than those with a normal atmospheric make up.

Humans increase atmospheric CO2 by at least 5% yearly, and thanks to this its according high historically right now according to ice core samples.

That seems to be it anymore.

Besides that, everyone has an opinion concerning even the formerly "obvious" decade long trend of the loss of polar ice (weird, ask shipping companies that go through the northwest passage now if its more open than before)

Regardless, that opening could be part of a natural cycle, or could not.

What percentage of could or could not is up for debate. Also is the percentage of risk different ppl are willing to take in regards to "it could be our fault"

My point would be, "If there is a 5% chance giving your kid milk out of a lead cup will make him 5% dumber do you take the chance to avoid buying a proper bottle?" 50% 25% 75% who knows how important that buck we can save in exhaust technology is.

 

[chanel]

Oh but kee kee - Sen. Boxer thinks the real criminals are the hackers - not the hoaxers.

Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over 'Climategate'
By Michael O'Brien - 12/02/09 03:26 PM ET

Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon.

Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.

"You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" she said during a committee meeting.

Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over 'Climategate' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room


Two great comments on the article;

Was there an inquest about NYT leaks, say, about bank account transfers of terrorists we were tracking?

What about the hacked Sarah Palin emails. Did she complain about that? And there is no proof this was a "hack". Most likely a whistleblower

 

[IanC]

this has probably already been covered but here is my $.02 worth. Manmade Global Warming is real!!!!!

but the actual effects of AGW are dwarfed by naturally occuring changes. sunspots, volcanoes, ocean currents, to name a few, have a huge impact on climate. we do not. but we do make a little one.

 

[ihopehefails]

The emails were stolen.

The investigation has just begun.

In the end I think you will see some people go to jail for stealing private information and the data will hold firm.

As long as we also prosecute the scientist who lied to the government and blocked FOIA request at the same time. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[ihopehefails]

Oh but kee kee - Sen. Boxer thinks the real criminals are the hackers - not the hoaxers.

Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over 'Climategate'
By Michael O'Brien - 12/02/09 03:26 PM ET

Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon.

Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.

"You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" she said during a committee meeting.

Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over 'Climategate' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room


Two great comments on the article;

Was there an inquest about NYT leaks, say, about bank account transfers of terrorists we were tracking?

What about the hacked Sarah Palin emails. Did she complain about that? And there is no proof this was a "hack". Most likely a whistleblower

This only shows their totalitarian nature that the left has because they seem to think that the government can be used to prosecute those that oppose their idealogy. Why would you prosecute those that exposed a crime?

 

[FactFinder]

Oh but kee kee - Sen. Boxer thinks the real criminals are the hackers - not the hoaxers.

Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over 'Climategate'
By Michael O'Brien - 12/02/09 03:26 PM ET

Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon.

Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.

"You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" she said during a committee meeting.

Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over 'Climategate' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room


Two great comments on the article;

Was there an inquest about NYT leaks, say, about bank account transfers of terrorists we were tracking?

What about the hacked Sarah Palin emails. Did she complain about that? And there is no proof this was a "hack". Most likely a whistleblower

This only shows their totalitarian nature that the left has because they seem to think that the government can be used to prosecute those that oppose their idealogy. Why would you prosecute those that exposed a crime?

It certainly seems that the greater priorty would be if there was a fraud being perpetrated that had global implications. Rather stinks of politcal expediency, heh?

 

[Si modo]

Facts we all agree on:
In enclosed environment experiments those with higher CO2/greenhouse gas content experience higher temperatures than those with a normal atmospheric make up. ....

Until I see the analysis of non-corrupted data, no I cannot agree on that.

.... Humans increase atmospheric CO2 by at least 5% yearly, and thanks to this its according high historically right now according to ice core samples. ....

Until I see the analysis of the non-corrupted data, no I cannot agree on that.

.... That seems to be it anymore. ....

Before it was strongly suspected that the CRU data, and subsequent data building on that, was corrupted, yes that was it - a correlation.

.... Besides that, everyone has an opinion concerning even the formerly "obvious" decade long trend of the loss of polar ice (weird, ask shipping companies that go through the northwest passage now if its more open than before)

Regardless, that opening could be part of a natural cycle, or could not. ....

Either is possible.

.... What percentage of could or could not is up for debate. Also is the percentage of risk different ppl are willing to take in regards to "it could be our fault"

My point would be, "If there is a 5% chance giving your kid milk out of a lead cup will make him 5% dumber do you take the chance to avoid buying a proper bottle?" 50% 25% 75% who knows how important that buck we can save in exhaust technology is.

The rest is silliness - Pascal's wager. You might as well try to tell an atheist that it is a good idea to be a believer with that rational.

 

[Peacedog]

From Borat: "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."


Borat,

I really appreciate your commentary on the Iraq war. You bravely state the horrifying fact that this war is a crime perpetrated on our own Military, not to mention the Iraqi people. (OK - bravery may not apply to annonymous forums - but still, good post.)

With that, I ask that you elaborate on your Global Warming point. I find myself emotionally attached to the environmental issue, and want to either validate or vacate. I do not expect that humanity will forgo expansion to rescue particular species. I am most concerned that our behaviour is self destructive.

I would propose that the degradation of our environment is no hoax. I defer to the disertation of experts. For example, a 3700 year old pine tree tells us that the planet is warming. w3.pnas.org/content/early/2009/11/13/0903029106.abstract?sid=1c81cc57-d8a5-47ac-9652-9664d86f01cf. Or the case of Tuvalu; these people live face-to-face with the issue, and aren't subject to Gore-isms. w3.acfnewsource.org/environment/Tuvalu.html (please forgive the source and allow the story to stand on its own.) Regardless if the warming is due to human behaviour, we are in danger, and have the power to act.

Please advise. Thank you.

 

[Toronado3800]

Pascal's wager.......probability! This is what big decisions are built around from a National Level to baseball teams. There is no better way of deciding.

I love probability and base life off it. If I think there is a 1 in 100 chance pulling out into traffic will get me hit, I wait. If a set of X-Rays doubles your risk of bone cancer from 1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in 50,0000 get the darn X-Rays if your leg may be broken.

Unknowns do mess with me.

Another small personal level way of using probability. If you're looking to avoid an ex you had a particularly nasty split with attending a dinner party with 6 other folks probably isn't going to cut it. However going to a trivia night event with maybe 1,000 ppl she's attending and you'll have a way better chance of not being stuck talking with her the WHOLE night.

 

[Jay Canuck]

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.

I take it you can prove that what was lost was purpously thrown away and what was lost was proof that man-made climate change in fact does not exist?

 

[Jay Canuck]

I'm still just trying to figure out how 10 people involved in a hacked e-mail investigation is proof that there is a mass conspiracy involving the vast majority of the worlds scientists?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm still just trying to figure out how 10 people involved in a hacked e-mail investigation is proof that there is a mass conspiracy involving the vast majority of the worlds scientists?

I have the sense that there are many, many things in life that you're "... still just trying to figure out...."

 

[Andrew2382]

it is real


al gore said so

 

[Jay Canuck]

wow stuporchick! - part of your super powers must be heightened senses and feelings!..... and your kryptonite - logic.

 

[keee keee]

Man caused global warming but they can't explain the last few iceages when man caused nothing!!! Global warming is full of as much bullshit as the Obama presidency

 

[Charles Stucker]

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?

Academic myopia is a more reasonable explanation.
Graduate students who dispute the conclusions of their dissertation advisers tend to not get advanced degrees, so the process of obtaining a PhD tends to produce similar minded people. In climatology the inability to adequately test models means that a single idea can take hold and it is difficult for those who do not agree to obtain the credentials to refute the expert opinions of those already in the community.
To a lesser degree the same thing occurs in hard sciences like physics; the cold fusion 'miracle' of the 90's turned out to be misread data, but before the community had realize this at least one prominent university researcher had confirmed the mistaken claim.

Global warming is just more of the same thing, and it really does make the science sound more relevant to say "Yes our research shows which way humanity must act to survive" than "The sun's output is changing so we have to expect changes in the weather"
Ego and pride are the culprits.

 

[Si modo]

Pascal's wager.......probability! This is what big decisions are built around from a National Level to baseball teams. There is no better way of deciding.

I love probability and base life off it. If I think there is a 1 in 100 chance pulling out into traffic will get me hit, I wait. If a set of X-Rays doubles your risk of bone cancer from 1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in 50,0000 get the darn X-Rays if your leg may be broken. ....

Absurd analogies to this situation.

.... Unknowns do mess with me.

Another small personal level way of using probability. If you're looking to avoid an ex you had a particularly nasty split with attending a dinner party with 6 other folks probably isn't going to cut it. However going to a trivia night event with maybe 1,000 ppl she's attending and you'll have a way better chance of not being stuck talking with her the WHOLE night.

Useless analogies.

The data, on which non-falsifiable predictive models were based (ie. nothing scientific about them), has been manipulated, suppressed, and fabricated in cases. There is not even an ability to make a guess as to a reasonable probability as to what is real or not.

A lot of the science needs to be redone. There are no mulligans in science.

 

[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.

I take it you can prove that what was lost was purpously thrown away and what was lost was proof that man-made climate change in fact does not exist?

Yes Jay, I can prove the original data was thrown away:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.


It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

​

No, no one can prove anything contained in the original data...mostly due to the fact...wait for it...the scientists threw it away.


Can I prove that the data was intentionally destroyed to hide discrepancies? No, I cannot...but I can INFER from the PATTERN of deceit proven by the hacked emails that it is possible...even likely...that this is the indeed the case.

​

In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"

In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"




At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." ...




Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.

Hiding evidence of global warming --thewashingtontimes.com
​

See a trend forming?

Me too.
​

 

[Sinatra]

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.

I take it you can prove that what was lost was purpously thrown away and what was lost was proof that man-made climate change in fact does not exist?

Yes Jay, I can prove the original data was thrown away:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.


It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

​

No, no one can prove anything contained in the original data...mostly due to the fact...wait for it...the scientists threw it away.


Can I prove that the data was intentionally destroyed to hide discrepancies? No, I cannot...but I can INFER from the PATTERN of deceit proven by the hacked emails that it is possible...even likely...that this is the indeed the case.

​

In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"

In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"




At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." ...




Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.

Hiding evidence of global warming --thewashingtontimes.com
​

See a trend forming?

Me too.
​

Keep up the good fight against the partisan hack flat-earth global warmers...