Wake Up Brain Dead Libs! Man Made Climate Change is a Fraud

[Ravi]

What data? They destroyed it. Vested interest=billions in research dollars for global warming researchers. Why are you playing (dumb I might add) then?

Don't be a twat. They didn't destroy the data around the world. As I said, ideologues should leave this alone, they fuck up everything they touch.

Educate yourself. The original data is gone and can't be reconstructed. The scientists who did it admited they did it. The manipulated data is still out there, but of course it will lead you to a global warming conclusion, because that is what it is supposed to do. Volcanoes, El Nino, sunspots and a slight wobble of the axis cause climate change. People are part of the CO2 cycle for plants. Breathe slower.

The original data was collected from weather stations world wide. Unless you can show that weather stations world wide destroyed their records you are not credible.

 

[saveliberty]

Nope. It makes more sense for me to try and understand it for myself - not that I can interpret the data. And I also like to try and pick out the vested interests at work. This is a serious topic, it shouldn't be the plaything of ideologues.

What data? They destroyed it. Vested interest=billions in research dollars for global warming researchers. Why are you playing (dumb I might add) then?

I know Diuretic can hold his own, especially against ideologues, but you are misinterpreting/misreading his question/statement. Try not viewing everyone as us vs them all the time when someone is asking a reasonable question or making a rational statement.

If it was a question than an answer is perfectly acceptable. If it is a rational statement, it should be defensable. I would welcome the proper interpretation or question you feel I didn't understand.

 

[Annie]

Nope. It makes more sense for me to try and understand it for myself - not that I can interpret the data. And I also like to try and pick out the vested interests at work. This is a serious topic, it shouldn't be the plaything of ideologues.

What data? They destroyed it. Vested interest=billions in research dollars for global warming researchers. Why are you playing (dumb I might add) then?

Don't be a twat. They didn't destroy the data around the world. As I said, ideologues should leave this alone, they fuck up everything they touch.

They did destroy the raw data. They admitted that last weekend. What they do have, which they rarely shared was the 'adjusted' data. Problem with that becomes obvious when you look at the ReadMeHarry txt. The code.

I'm not saying there isn't global warming, although currently there is not; to the consternation of the scientists, which also is clear by those emails. Then the issue becomes if the warming resumes, is or was it mankind influenced? That also is not clear, much less settled. Seems no doubt they need to collect raw data once again and start if not from scratch, at least back to before 1997, when the obvious problems began.

 

[Ringel05]

What data? They destroyed it. Vested interest=billions in research dollars for global warming researchers. Why are you playing (dumb I might add) then?

I know Diuretic can hold his own, especially against ideologues, but you are misinterpreting/misreading his question/statement. Try not viewing everyone as us vs them all the time when someone is asking a reasonable question or making a rational statement.

If it was a question than an answer is perfectly acceptable. If it is a rational statement, it should be defensable. I would welcome the proper interpretation or question you feel I didn't understand.

It's easy to see if you would only view it from outside of your own cognitive construct. There are still mounds of data that have not been "destroyed" and need to be re-investigated, that is what he was getting at. How much simpler could that be?

 

[Xenophon]

They won't change their minds until Arianna tells them to.

Amazingly, she was a joke following around Arnold during eth Grey Davis recall and pretending to be conservative, before becoming the queen of leftist bloggers.

 

[Annie]

Nope. It makes more sense for me to try and understand it for myself - not that I can interpret the data. And I also like to try and pick out the vested interests at work. This is a serious topic, it shouldn't be the plaything of ideologues.

What data? They destroyed it. Vested interest=billions in research dollars for global warming researchers. Why are you playing (dumb I might add) then?

Don't be a twat. They didn't destroy the data around the world. As I said, ideologues should leave this alone, they fuck up everything they touch.

They destroyed the raw data they had. So now, others need to do the same, all over again, since their 'reconstituted data' can't be accounted for. Global warming needs global accounting, not as easy as it sounds. Not all countries are that good at keeping records.

 

[Xenophon]

What data? They destroyed it. Vested interest=billions in research dollars for global warming researchers. Why are you playing (dumb I might add) then?

Don't be a twat. They didn't destroy the data around the world. As I said, ideologues should leave this alone, they fuck up everything they touch.

They destroyed the raw data they had. So now, others need to do the same, all over again, since their 'reconstituted data' can't be accounted for. Global warming needs global accounting, not as easy as it sounds. Not all countries are that good at keeping records.

So we wait another 150 years to get new data?

 

[saveliberty]

Don't be a twat. They didn't destroy the data around the world. As I said, ideologues should leave this alone, they fuck up everything they touch.

They destroyed the raw data they had. So now, others need to do the same, all over again, since their 'reconstituted data' can't be accounted for. Global warming needs global accounting, not as easy as it sounds. Not all countries are that good at keeping records.

So we wait another 150 years to get new data?

No, it just means that data must be derived from tree rings and other sources all over again. A massive undertaking.

 

[Diuretic]

What data? They destroyed it. Vested interest=billions in research dollars for global warming researchers. Why are you playing (dumb I might add) then?

Don't be a twat. They didn't destroy the data around the world. As I said, ideologues should leave this alone, they fuck up everything they touch.

Educate yourself. The original data is gone and can't be reconstructed. The scientists who did it admited they did it. The manipulated data is still out there, but of course it will lead you to a global warming conclusion, because that is what it is supposed to do. Volcanoes, El Nino, sunspots and a slight wobble of the axis cause climate change. People are part of the CO2 cycle for plants. Breathe slower.

I'm trying to make sense of the incident(s) at UEA. I found this in a letter to the editor in one of our national newspapers. It's just someone's opinion but every little helps:

...the only thing we know has been done illegally is stealing emails and documents. The so-called alteration of data relates to extending a long-term tree ring-based approximation to temperatures to modern times by adding instrument data. The reason for this, that the specific tree ring data set stops matching temperature records in the mid 20th century, has been reported on in many scientific papers, including some by the accused scientists. That this one record of the temperature stops matching all the others is an interesting puzzle; the fact that it is widely known hardly counts as deception.

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.../theaustralian/comments/last_post_december_3/ - it's the one from Philip Machanik.

 

[saveliberty]

Don't be a twat. They didn't destroy the data around the world. As I said, ideologues should leave this alone, they fuck up everything they touch.

Educate yourself. The original data is gone and can't be reconstructed. The scientists who did it admited they did it. The manipulated data is still out there, but of course it will lead you to a global warming conclusion, because that is what it is supposed to do. Volcanoes, El Nino, sunspots and a slight wobble of the axis cause climate change. People are part of the CO2 cycle for plants. Breathe slower.

I'm trying to make sense of the incident(s) at UEA. I found this in a letter to the editor in one of our national newspapers. It's just someone's opinion but every little helps:

...the only thing we know has been done illegally is stealing emails and documents. The so-called alteration of data relates to extending a long-term tree ring-based approximation to temperatures to modern times by adding instrument data. The reason for this, that the specific tree ring data set stops matching temperature records in the mid 20th century, has been reported on in many scientific papers, including some by the accused scientists. That this one record of the temperature stops matching all the others is an interesting puzzle; the fact that it is widely known hardly counts as deception.

Letters Blog | The Australian - it's the one from Philip Machanik.

You need to research better. They have already ADMITTED to destroying data. The data doesn't match because they manipulated the data. Trees didn't become unreliable all of a sudden.

 

[Diuretic]

Educate yourself. The original data is gone and can't be reconstructed. The scientists who did it admited they did it. The manipulated data is still out there, but of course it will lead you to a global warming conclusion, because that is what it is supposed to do. Volcanoes, El Nino, sunspots and a slight wobble of the axis cause climate change. People are part of the CO2 cycle for plants. Breathe slower.

I'm trying to make sense of the incident(s) at UEA. I found this in a letter to the editor in one of our national newspapers. It's just someone's opinion but every little helps:

...the only thing we know has been done illegally is stealing emails and documents. The so-called alteration of data relates to extending a long-term tree ring-based approximation to temperatures to modern times by adding instrument data. The reason for this, that the specific tree ring data set stops matching temperature records in the mid 20th century, has been reported on in many scientific papers, including some by the accused scientists. That this one record of the temperature stops matching all the others is an interesting puzzle; the fact that it is widely known hardly counts as deception.

Letters Blog | The Australian - it's the one from Philip Machanik.

You need to research better. They have already ADMITTED to destroying data. The data doesn't match because they manipulated the data. Trees didn't become unreliable all of a sudden.

Okay, they destroyed data. Data has been manipulated. And we know this how?
Has the inquiry been completed?

 

[saveliberty]

I'm trying to make sense of the incident(s) at UEA. I found this in a letter to the editor in one of our national newspapers. It's just someone's opinion but every little helps:


Letters Blog | The Australian - it's the one from Philip Machanik.

You need to research better. They have already ADMITTED to destroying data. The data doesn't match because they manipulated the data. Trees didn't become unreliable all of a sudden.

Okay, they destroyed data. Data has been manipulated. And we know this how?
Has the inquiry been completed?

The people who did it admitted it. It is reported in the papers. You can find it online.

 

[Diuretic]

You need to research better. They have already ADMITTED to destroying data. The data doesn't match because they manipulated the data. Trees didn't become unreliable all of a sudden.

Okay, they destroyed data. Data has been manipulated. And we know this how?
Has the inquiry been completed?

The people who did it admitted it. It is reported in the papers. You can find it online.

Yes the University of East Anglia one, there's an inquiry, it hasn't finished yet.

 

[saveliberty]

Okay, they destroyed data. Data has been manipulated. And we know this how?
Has the inquiry been completed?

The people who did it admitted it. It is reported in the papers. You can find it online.

Yes the University of East Anglia one, there's an inquiry, it hasn't finished yet.

Oh, but early findings have been released, THEY ADMITTED DESTROYING RAW DATA! Hiding behind word play won't make the whipping any less painful.

"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."

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

 

[Ravi]

The people who did it admitted it. It is reported in the papers. You can find it online.

Yes the University of East Anglia one, there's an inquiry, it hasn't finished yet.

Oh, but early findings have been released, THEY ADMITTED DESTROYING RAW DATA! Hiding behind word play won't make the whipping any less painful.

"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."

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

That doesn't mean that the data doesn't still exist...it still exists from the original sources.

You people make up silly and meaningless things to prove nothing really.

 

[Diuretic]

The people who did it admitted it. It is reported in the papers. You can find it online.

Yes the University of East Anglia one, there's an inquiry, it hasn't finished yet.

Oh, but early findings have been released, THEY ADMITTED DESTROYING RAW DATA! Hiding behind word play won't make the whipping any less painful.

"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."

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

And in the other thousands of universities around the world? In the thousands of scientific establishments in the world? They're busy destroying and manipulating data and thus all the science on global climate change is now reduced to junk status?

 

[saveliberty]

Yes the University of East Anglia one, there's an inquiry, it hasn't finished yet.

Oh, but early findings have been released, THEY ADMITTED DESTROYING RAW DATA! Hiding behind word play won't make the whipping any less painful.

"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."

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

That doesn't mean that the data doesn't still exist...it still exists from the original sources.

You people make up silly and meaningless things to prove nothing really.

Ravi, they have to retrieve all the raw data which is time consuming and costly. Then the data was manipulated. This newly created data is not reproduceable, unless UEA provides the method they used to do this. To date, they are not willing. Finally, why the coverup? Unless there is fraud. That would have meaning and not be "made up" and prove a great deal actually.

 

[Diuretic]

The original link in the op goes to a claim by Plimer.

Lateline - 27/04/2009: Ian Plimer discusses his book denying global warming

Plimer wants to talk science? OK, here goes… – Crikey

Debunking Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth” « to be precise

Not really persuasive.

Now, has the science been overturned?

 

[saveliberty]

Yes the University of East Anglia one, there's an inquiry, it hasn't finished yet.

Oh, but early findings have been released, THEY ADMITTED DESTROYING RAW DATA! Hiding behind word play won't make the whipping any less painful.

"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."

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

And in the other thousands of universities around the world? In the thousands of scientific establishments in the world? They're busy destroying and manipulating data and thus all the science on global climate change is now reduced to junk status?

How many points do you want to lose on in one day? There are not thousands of universities working on climate issues. There are actually only a few that are/were considered leaders. Yes, it appears much of it is junk at this point. Proving it one way or the other is going to take some time. In the interim, millions will be spent to confirm or deny. All because a few thought they had the answer and used science as a veil for their trickery.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another science denying nut job who need to move to Oklahoma!

Dear Diary,

I'm so happy that Global Warming is finally settled science!

But it changes so many things.

The children will have to get used to Santa and his eight camels,

and the boys will be watching water polo instead of hockey!