Shocker: Fossil Fuel Funded Lawyer fools Fox News and Forum Posters

[skookerasbil]

"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements.."

RWatt can't read.

The Warmer himself admitted to falsifying the data. Not Foxnews, not a lawyer.

The Warmer himself admitted to faking the data.

Not only does Fox say "Fair & Balanced"

but they also repeat this over and over; "We report.....you decide".

That means sometimes they can't vouch for a story, but when they discover it's bogus they release a retraction.

I've never, ever heard CNN or the others do that.

Fox needs these disclaimers they're such liars..

Yeah.....but the people prefer the liars 4-1

 

[code1211]

YYou are proposing that the level of the oceans has risen by 1 meter vertically.

No, read it again.

Quoting from your post #32 above:

"Why would an entire fortress be underwater just because sea level has risen? Aren't you assuming something about the amount that the sea level has risen. I imagine that fortress is more than a meter tall."

That is where my confusion arose. How much has the sea level increased since 1695 according to the experts?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No he didn't you liar.

"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements.."

Read 'em n weep, Warmer.

By that standard you've admitted you are a liar.

Say whatever you want about me, I'm not the issue.

The Director himself admitted falsifying the data.

"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements.."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements.."

RWatt can't read.

The Warmer himself admitted to falsifying the data. Not Foxnews, not a lawyer.

The Warmer himself admitted to faking the data.

Not only does Fox say "Fair & Balanced"

but they also repeat this over and over; "We report.....you decide".

That means sometimes they can't vouch for a story, but when they discover it's bogus they release a retraction.

I've never, ever heard CNN or the others do that.

Fox needs these disclaimers they're such liars..

Sweetheart, the Director of the Institute admitted the data is forged.

"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements.."

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you two actually deny sea level has risen over the 20th century? Do you deny the world has warmed? or that water expands when they it is heated?

As for the subject, you've both been hoodwinked by a lawyer. He was hidden in plain sight. He did you.

You should be ashamed.

1. "Analysis: To be sure, there are problems with the temperature record on which the finding of 0.8 degrees Celsius warming since the early 1800s is based, and as the “Climategate” scandal revealed, many scientists have abused the data or acted in bad faith, undermining their credibility."
Climate Change | PoliPundit.com

2. In the words of Melanie Phillips, (The World Turned Upside Down), “we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.”

a. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.

3. So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.

That's liberalism for 'ya.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you two actually deny sea level has risen over the 20th century? Do you deny the world has warmed? or that water expands when they it is heated?

As for the subject, you've both been hoodwinked by a lawyer. He was hidden in plain sight. He did you.

You should be ashamed.

1. "Analysis: To be sure, there are problems with the temperature record on which the finding of 0.8 degrees Celsius warming since the early 1800s is based, and as the “Climategate” scandal revealed, many scientists have abused the data or acted in bad faith, undermining their credibility."
Climate Change | PoliPundit.com

2. In the words of Melanie Phillips, (The World Turned Upside Down), “we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.”

a. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.

3. So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.

That's liberalism for 'ya.

Their settled science is neither

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is why Warmers can never be scientists. When will real scientists wake up and boot these embarrassments off campus?

 

[skookerasbil]

So you two actually deny sea level has risen over the 20th century? Do you deny the world has warmed? or that water expands when they it is heated?

As for the subject, you've both been hoodwinked by a lawyer. He was hidden in plain sight. He did you.

You should be ashamed.

1. "Analysis: To be sure, there are problems with the temperature record on which the finding of 0.8 degrees Celsius warming since the early 1800s is based, and as the “Climategate” scandal revealed, many scientists have abused the data or acted in bad faith, undermining their credibility."
Climate Change | PoliPundit.com

2. In the words of Melanie Phillips, (The World Turned Upside Down), “we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.”

a. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.

3. So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.

That's liberalism for 'ya.

Indeed.........liberalism is laughable. At least it is in a pronounced spiral downward anywhere you look around the globe.

We're ganna see some shit in the next few years that people have never seen before in their lifetimes and its ALL gonna have to do with the BS empty promises that are the foundation of socialism. Shits soon to be propped up in a big glass case in a museum near you, presented as a relic of a former era.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers are defending the actions of the data faker on the basis that Global Warming is for real no matter what the actual reading say.

 

[skookerasbil]

The Warmers are defending the actions of the data faker on the basis that Global Warming is for real no matter what the actual reading say.

Yo Frank.........gotta make sure to pick me up with bumping this thread for the next several months. People gotta know about this bogus stuff going on with the "real" scientists.


faking data is gay...............

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers are defending the actions of the data faker on the basis that Global Warming is for real no matter what the actual reading say.

Yo Frank.........gotta make sure to pick me up with bumping this thread for the next several months. People gotta know about this bogus stuff going on with the "real" scientists.


faking data is gay...............

Real scientists would rather die than fake data.

Did you know that prior to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the orbit of the planet Mercury did not fit into Newton's models? Had those scientists been Warmers they would have altered their readings to make it fit into Newtons model.

General relativity was able to perfectly account for the variance.

Good thing the Decline hiders weren't at Universities back then

 

[daveman]

The Warmers are defending the actions of the data faker on the basis that Global Warming is for real no matter what the actual reading say.

Fake But Accurate (©2004, CBS News, used under license by Al Gore Enterprises).

 

[skookerasbil]

Heard on the John Bachelor Show last night that the organization is under alot of pressure to post up both sets of data on their website, which they will probably end up doing. Bachelors guest was saying that the manipulation of the ocean levels based upon...........ready for this...........the earth's landmass expanding due to having been compressed during the last ice age. TOTALLY bogus science.............."non-science" as the guest termed it. The same scientists Rocks calls "real scientists".

Also.........the guest was saying that this whole science is getting desperate due to polictical pressures, just like Ive been saying for years.......and the k00ks cant comprehend. They thinks its about the science.......... Every other month they are getting nailed faking shit...............



bUmP

 

[IanC]

I wish someone would fund Steve McIntyre for a coupla interns to do the gruntwork of tracking down data sets, etc. the return on the dollar would be amazing. but contrary to the bullshit claims on this board most amateur skeptics volunteer their time and pay expenses out of their pocket.

 

[freetime]

The Warmers are defending the actions of the data faker on the basis that Global Warming is for real no matter what the actual reading say.

Yo Frank.........gotta make sure to pick me up with bumping this thread for the next several months. People gotta know about this bogus stuff going on with the "real" scientists.


faking data is gay...............

Real scientists would rather die than fake data.

Did you know that prior to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the orbit of the planet Mercury did not fit into Newton's models? Had those scientists been Warmers they would have altered their readings to make it fit into Newtons model.

General relativity was able to perfectly account for the variance.

Good thing the Decline hiders weren't at Universities back then

No data was "faked." The adjustments were made to account for the expansion of the sea basin. That this is being made into some sort of supposed "scandal" is pathetic. The CU website explains the exactly why the adjustments are made.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yo Frank.........gotta make sure to pick me up with bumping this thread for the next several months. People gotta know about this bogus stuff going on with the "real" scientists.


faking data is gay...............

Real scientists would rather die than fake data.

Did you know that prior to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the orbit of the planet Mercury did not fit into Newton's models? Had those scientists been Warmers they would have altered their readings to make it fit into Newtons model.

General relativity was able to perfectly account for the variance.

Good thing the Decline hiders weren't at Universities back then

No data was "faked." The adjustments were made to account for the expansion of the sea basin. That this is being made into some sort of supposed "scandal" is pathetic. The CU website explains the exactly why the adjustments are made.

The adjustments were made to compensate for something that was reducing the impact of seal level rise.

 

[freetime]

The adjustments were made to compensate for something that was reducing the impact of seal level rise.

The adjustments were made due to "the fact that the ocean basins are getting slightly larger since the end of the last glacial cycle."

 

[westwall]

Yo Frank.........gotta make sure to pick me up with bumping this thread for the next several months. People gotta know about this bogus stuff going on with the "real" scientists.


faking data is gay...............

Real scientists would rather die than fake data.

Did you know that prior to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the orbit of the planet Mercury did not fit into Newton's models? Had those scientists been Warmers they would have altered their readings to make it fit into Newtons model.

General relativity was able to perfectly account for the variance.

Good thing the Decline hiders weren't at Universities back then

No data was "faked." The adjustments were made to account for the expansion of the sea basin. That this is being made into some sort of supposed "scandal" is pathetic. The CU website explains the exactly why the adjustments are made.

Isostatic rebound is a well known phenomena. It occurs on continental kratons that were compressed into the lithosphere by the great weight of ice upon them. Continents have a lower density due to their being made up primarily of granitic rocks which have a much lower density then the basaltic rocks that make up the ocean floors. The ocean floors are not "expanding", the ocean floors are static due to the aformentioned density differences and the fact that the ocean basins are under quadrillions of tons of water. They are NOT expanding and until the water is removed from them can NEVER expand.

Even were the water removed it is debatable whether they would rise. The "theory" postulated to justify the falsification of the data reminds me of the pre plate tectonic era when the "consensus" theory was that the Earth was shrinking and the mountains were the hard stuff underneath that was resistant to shrinkage.

This is what you refer to as science?

 

[IanC]

land based shifts are directly measured, ocean based shifts are modeled. I dont think the science is mature enough to add a modelled three dimensional adjustment to a point measurement that is already corrected for land height changes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yo Frank.........gotta make sure to pick me up with bumping this thread for the next several months. People gotta know about this bogus stuff going on with the "real" scientists.


faking data is gay...............

Real scientists would rather die than fake data.

Did you know that prior to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the orbit of the planet Mercury did not fit into Newton's models? Had those scientists been Warmers they would have altered their readings to make it fit into Newtons model.

General relativity was able to perfectly account for the variance.

Good thing the Decline hiders weren't at Universities back then

No data was "faked." The adjustments were made to account for the expansion of the sea basin. That this is being made into some sort of supposed "scandal" is pathetic. The CU website explains the exactly why the adjustments are made.

That's pure crap! There is no "Expansion of the sea basins" That's a fraud Bernie Madoff would be proud of.

It's not even junk science, it's a fraud!