Global Warming is political "science" and politicians need a question put to them

[bripat9643]

If you want to look at this and then tell us there's no warming going on, we can't stop you. But anyone with two neurons to rub together fully understands how overwhelmingly full of shit you are.

View attachment 641012

5 propaganda sites that manipulate their data. They've all been caught, especially HadCRUT5

 

[Crick]

5 propaganda sites that manipulate their data. They've all been caught, especially HadCRUT5

Don't make me search through the steaming pile of bullshit this thread contains. Who, where and how do you believe these data were manipulated so as to make you feel they are untrustworthy?

 

[LaDairis]

If you want to look at this and then tell us there's no warming going on, we can't stop you. But anyone with two neurons to rub together fully understands how overwhelmingly full of shit you are.

View attachment 641012

Look at this and tell me what is the difference between your graphic and mine....

 

[Crick]

Look at this and tell me what is the difference between your graphic and mine....

Yours is a photgraph of what I assume to be fudge while mine was a graph of global temperature data as compiled by Hadley Centre, Goddard, European Center, NOAA and Berkely Earth. The claim is that all of these organizations have been found guilty of modifying their data to present false evidence of warming. Do YOU have some evidence that is taking place? Our original poster is apparently still working on it.

Because what I wonder is how the thousands of scientists from a dozen different fields who USE those data on a daily basis in their own work are making do with fake data? I should think fake data would fuck all their work right up and that they'd be hopping mad about it. Yet we don't find thousands of unhappy scientists. We find thousands of happy scientists because those data do work as input to a thousand different processes and do match observations and do verify predictions and that the only people complaining and claiming that they are false are people who have said such things all along and who generally lack the technicalqualifications or the records of integrity to be trusted on such issues. You know, ignorant fools like you.

 

[LaDairis]

mine was a graph of global temperature data as compiled by Hadley Centre, Goddard, European Center, NOAA and Berkely Earth.

Did you check that data?

No

IS any of the data used to make the chart fudged?

YUP, already documented

Does your chart just show URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT because it is overwhelmingly data from growing urban areas?

Yup

To figure out that chart is fudge, how high does your IQ have to be?

Above 5

 

[bripat9643]

Don't make me search through the steaming pile of bullshit this thread contains. Who, where and how do you believe these data were manipulated so as to make you feel they are untrustworthy?

Haven't you ever heard of Climategate? That's where the guys running these various sites admitted they were manipulating the data.

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

You don't know about stuff like this because you only watch fake news.

 

[LaDairis]

Haven't you ever heard of Climategate? That's where the guys running these various sites admitted they were manipulating the data.

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

You don't know about stuff like this because you only watch fake news.

And the British Court ruling....

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

 

[Crick]

And the British Court ruling....

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Are you shitting me? Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth?

1) Al Gore is a great fellow and I wish he'd been elected president, but he is not a climate scientist and his movie.
2) Despite #1, almost every one of the court's conclusions has been shown to be incorrect.
3) The question is who, where and how has it been demonstrated that the major weather and climate organizations whose global temperature data show the planet to be warming are intentionally producing false data. Your response is completely irrelevant to that question. It's actually completely irrelevant to just about any question except perhaps who might be the stupidest poster in this thread.

 

[bripat9643]

Yours is a photgraph of what I assume to be fudge while mine was a graph of global temperature data as compiled by Hadley Centre, Goddard, European Center, NOAA and Berkely Earth. The claim is that all of these organizations have been found guilty of modifying their data to present false evidence of warming. Do YOU have some evidence that is taking place? Our original poster is apparently still working on it.

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

Because what I wonder is how the thousands of scientists from a dozen different fields who USE those data on a daily basis in their own work are making do with fake data? I should think fake data would fuck all their work right up and that they'd be hopping mad about it. Yet we don't find thousands of unhappy scientists. We find thousands of happy scientists because those data do work as input to a thousand different processes and do match observations and do verify predictions and that the only people complaining and claiming that they are false are people who have said such things all along and who generally lack the technicalqualifications or the records of integrity to be trusted on such issues. You know, ignorant fools like you.

What do they use it for other than to bamboozle the public?

 

[Crick]

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


What do they use it for other than to bamboozle the public?

I'm sorry but this does not support your contention that the temperature data has been falsified. It supports the idea that some of the scientists working on this issue are also citizens of the planet and decided they needed to convince people to act to stave off the coming catastrophe. It also seems obvious that many of these comments and decisions were in response to the work of AGW deniers. You show us comments from a handful of individuals. Thousands of scientists have conducted research and published their results supporting AGW. You don't seem to want to admit it, but for your charges to be true, ALL of them would have to be members of an enormous and perfectly conducted conspiracy and that is simply absurdist nonsense.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm sorry but this does not support your contention that the temperature data has been falsified. It supports the idea that some of the scientists working on this issue are also citizens of the planet and decided they needed to convince people to act to stave off the coming catastrophe.

ROFL! No it doesn't. No matter what their motive, they falsified their data and violated scientific ethics. They're scum, just like you

It also seems obvious that many of these comments and decisions were in response to the work of AGW deniers.

In science such people are called "skeptics." They perform a valuable function by keeping scientists honest. If you paint them as enemy enemies, you only unmask yourself as an enemy of science.

You show us comments from a handful of individuals. Thousands of scientists have conducted research and published their results supporting AGW. You don't seem to want to admit it, but for your charges to be true, ALL of them would have to be members of an enormous and perfectly conducted conspiracy and that is simply absurdist nonsense.

True, there are thousands of scientists on the government payroll who lie about global warming. They have all been bribed. However, there are still a few honests scientists on this planet. However, it only takes one scientist with hard evidence to debunk dogma. Truth isn't determined by majority vote.

It's not "perfectly constructed" as the Climategate scandal demonstrates. Sometimes the truth gets out.

You use the same sleazy talking points.

Do progs ever learn new tricks?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do progs ever learn new tricks?

Mike's Nature Trick is pretty new.

 

[Crick]

Mike's Nature Trick is pretty new.

Why don't you explain Mike's Nature trick to us Todd. Tell us what it was and what it accomplished.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why don't you explain Mike's Nature trick to us Todd. Tell us what it was and what it accomplished.

Well, since a proxy stopped working, they added actual temperature measurements to the proxy data, to make it look better.

That's not sleazy at all, is it?

 

[Crick]

ROFL! No it doesn't. No matter what their motive, they falsified their data and violated scientific ethics. They're scum, just like you

You have no evidence to support that charge. Period.

In science such people are called "skeptics." They perform a valuable function by keeping scientists honest. If you paint them as enemy enemies, you only unmask yourself as an enemy of science

The skeptics that provide a valuable service do so by using the tools of science. I'm afraid you're unable to make that claim.

True, there are thousands of scientists on the government payroll who lie about global warming. They have all been bribed. However, there are still a few honests scientists on this planet. However, it only takes one scientist with hard evidence to debunk dogma. Truth isn't determined by majority vote.

There is no reason to believe that government scientists would be any more willing to put their careers at risk by lying than anyone else. And there are thousands of scientists who are NOT on government payrolls. None of them are complaining about falsified data. None of them have come out and confessed to being part of the huge conspiracy you claim exists. NONE. It only takes one experiment to falsify a theory but that falsification will not be accepted till it has been repeated and, so far, there has been no acceptance of your claims because your charges simply do not hold up.

It's not "perfectly constructed" as the Climategate scandal demonstrates. Sometimes the truth gets out.

You use the same sleazy talking points.

Do progs ever learn new tricks?

Show us some climate scientist testimony admitting to this conspiracy. There would have to be thousands of scientists deeply involved. Surely ONE of them would choose to confess. Where is it? Where? You've idiots have been making this claim for decades yet NO ONE has ever confessed to it. How stupid do you have to be to hang on to the nonsense you're shoveling?

 

[Crick]

Well, since a proxy stopped working, they added actual temperature measurements to the proxy data, to make it look better.

That's not sleazy at all, is it?

That's not Mike's Nature trick.

Here is the actual statement from Phil Jones of Hadley:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

You say "a proxy stopped working" as if that was some sort of failure. It was not. Proxies are historical analogs. You cannot use tree rings to show contemporary temperatures. The decision was made to add instrumented temperature data to the end of the plot to show what had actually happened to global temperatures. The data were clearly identified by color change and legend. The use of the trick to bring the two trends into a continuous stream was openly discussed in social media, emails and by the IPCC. So, no, it was not sleazy at all. What IS sleazy is the continued use of this demonstrable mischaracterization by AGW deniers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's not Mike's Nature trick.

Here is the actual statement from Phil Jones of Hadley:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

You say "a proxy stopped working" as if that was some sort of failure. It was not. Proxies are historical analogs. You cannot use tree rings to show contemporary temperatures. The decision was made to add instrumented temperature data to the end of the plot to show what had actually happened to global temperatures. The data were clearly identified by color change and legend. The use of the trick to bring the two trends into a continuous stream was openly discussed in social media, emails and by the IPCC. So, no, it was not sleazy at all. What IS sleazy is the continued use of this demonstrable mischaracterization by AGW deniers.

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

Adding real temps to proxies.

You say "a proxy stopped working" as if that was some sort of failure. It was not.

Failure? No. Just stopped working.

Proxies are historical analogs. You cannot use tree rings to show contemporary temperatures. The decision was made to add instrumented temperature data to the end of the plot to show what had actually happened to global temperatures.

They added real data to proxy data to show what happened?
How does taking what really happened and adding it to tree ring data show
"what had actually happened to global temperatures"?

Weren't the real temperatures "what had actually happened"?

The use of the trick to bring the two trends into a continuous stream

To make them look better. To lie about them.

So, no, it was not sleazy at all.

Sure thing.

 

[Crick]

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

Adding real temps to proxies.

You say "a proxy stopped working" as if that was some sort of failure. It was not.

Failure? No. Just stopped working.

Proxies are historical analogs. You cannot use tree rings to show contemporary temperatures. The decision was made to add instrumented temperature data to the end of the plot to show what had actually happened to global temperatures.

They added real data to proxy data to show what happened?
How does taking what really happened and adding it to tree ring data show
"what had actually happened to global temperatures"?

Weren't the real temperatures "what had actually happened"?

The use of the trick to bring the two trends into a continuous stream

To make them look better. To lie about them.

So, no, it was not sleazy at all.

Sure thing.

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. The proxy data were valid. The instrumented data were valid. What falsehood do you think is being perpetrated here Todd?

 

[bripat9643]

You have no evidence to support that charge. Period.

There is tons of it. I've been posting it for 20 years. The Climategate emails are big load of it.

The skeptics that provide a valuable service do so by using the tools of science. I'm afraid you're unable to make that claim.

They do se the tools of science, moron, like provable facts. The Climate hacks don't use science. Their "facts" are all made up. Their evidence is "homogenized."

There is no reason to believe that government scientists would be any more willing to put their careers at risk by lying than anyone else.

How do they put their careers at risk? The media covers for them and the government approves of it.

And there are thousands of scientists who are NOT on government payrolls.

Really? Name one who supports the AGW theory.

None of them are complaining about falsified data.

Whey would they complain about the data they falisfied?

None of them have come out and confessed to being part of the huge conspiracy you claim exists. NONE.

Right. So you believe the conspirators are going to tell the truth?

It only takes one experiment to falsify a theory but that falsification will not be accepted till it has been repeated and, so far, there has been no acceptance of your claims because your charges simply do not hold up.

There has been no repeatable experiment that verifies AGW, moron.

Show us some climate scientist testimony admitting to this conspiracy. There would have to be thousands of scientists deeply involved. Surely ONE of them would choose to confess. Where is it? Where? You've idiots have been making this claim for decades yet NO ONE has ever confessed to it. How stupid do you have to be to hang on to the nonsense you're shoveling?

Some have confessed. You don't know that because you read nothing but warmist propaganda.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The proxy data were valid. The instrumented data were valid.

And when they add them together, they're a lie.