Major Global Warming Data Scandal

[Genx87]

Ends justify the means!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dont question the scriptures!

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: IGBT
eco-theists will worship at the global warming alter no matter what. what needs to be done is to relegate them to their backyard hot houses where they can chant and pass rattle snakes around to the congregation.

Do you think you get less pathetic every time you type this stupid shit? How proud your parents must be when they look down at the light shining up from the basement.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Hey, guys.

I hate to interrupt this Lovefest but I'm thinking a significant percentage of empirical data used in peer-reviewed articles on climate/warming does not come from the Russian Federation and the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia.

However, I do think they find a lot of woolly mammoths up there --- since all the ice has been melting

prove your side... barry already posted links

How many MORE links do you need that the ice caps are shrinking and the oceans are rising?

Yeah, it's all hosed and scam. Please post some links that it's all gonna be ok! I was really hoping it was a scam too....

India's thirst is making us all wet

Wait a minute... other things MAY cause ocean levels to rise?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Hey, guys.

I hate to interrupt this Lovefest but I'm thinking a significant percentage of empirical data used in peer-reviewed articles on climate/warming does not come from the Russian Federation and the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia.

However, I do think they find a lot of woolly mammoths up there --- since all the ice has been melting

prove your side... barry already posted links

How many MORE links do you need that the ice caps are shrinking and the oceans are rising?

Yeah, it's all hosed and scam. Please post some links that it's all gonna be ok! I was really hoping it was a scam too....

India's thirst is making us all wet

Wait a minute... other things MAY cause ocean levels to rise?

Isn't the ocean water going to seep in to replace it? That's what happens here in FL anyway.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Hey, guys.

I hate to interrupt this Lovefest but I'm thinking a significant percentage of empirical data used in peer-reviewed articles on climate/warming does not come from the Russian Federation and the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia.

However, I do think they find a lot of woolly mammoths up there --- since all the ice has been melting

prove your side... barry already posted links

How many MORE links do you need that the ice caps are shrinking and the oceans are rising?

Yeah, it's all hosed and scam. Please post some links that it's all gonna be ok! I was really hoping it was a scam too....

India's thirst is making us all wet

Wait a minute... other things MAY cause ocean levels to rise?

Isn't the ocean water going to seep in to replace it? That's what happens here in FL anyway.

Depends...shallow alluvial aquifers are one thing and deep aquifers are quite another as they can take thousands of years to replenish.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Wasn't Hansen (NASA) also accused of 'modifying' the Siberian data a few years ago and wouldn't release his methodology? Not sure what ever became of that. The temperature data in Siberia is scarce at best and it's curious that we have a pattern of 'taint' associated with this data. Hmmm...interesting.

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Wasn't Hansen (NASA) also accused of 'modifying' the Siberian data a few years ago and wouldn't release his methodology? Not sure what ever became of that. The temperature data in Siberia is scarce at best and it's curious that we have a pattern of 'taint' associated with this data. Hmmm...interesting.

Yah Hansen gets busted all the time

"Inconvenient Truth: Team Gore Global Warming Members Hansen and Pachauri Caught Promoting Bad Data" :

"Dr. James Hansen - head of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) and chief scientific supporter of Al Gore's weather forecast: Booker reports that last week Hansen's group announced that this October was the warmest on record. Independent researchers, not part of the global warming propaganda campaign, found this somewhat suspicious in light of unprecedented cold weather reports from around the globe during the month. They investigated the GISS data - and shock! It was defective. Seems that all the data for Russia in the October report was rolled forward from the previous months(s). An astronomer by training, it appears that Dr. Hansen is somewhat challenged by terra firma data. "

http://www.jbs.org/index.php/e...ght-promoting-bad-data




"NASA Backtracks On 1998 Warmest Year Claim"

NASA Corrects 120 Years Worth of Bad Data, Notes NCPA Expert
DALLAS (August 14, 2007) - The warmest year on record is no longer 1998 and not because it has been overtaken by a recent heat wave. NASA scientist James Hansen's famous claims about 1998 being the warmest year on record in the U.S. was the result of a serious math error, according to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). NASA has now corrected the error, anointing 1934 as the warmest year and 1921 as the third warmest year, not 2006 as previously claimed.

http://environment.ncpa.org/ne...998-warmest-year-claim



His models were being used by "global cooling" scammers back in the 70's


"U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming."


Climate Change: Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did.

On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time...


"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.

Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger."

http://gopfolk.blogspot.com/20...on-global-warming.html


Hansen's former supervisor (and in charge of NASA's meteorological group said Hansen's models were no good

"James Hansen?s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic ? Says Hansen ?Embarrassed NASA?, ?Was Never Muzzled?, & Models ?Useless?"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...asa-was-never-muzzled/





The best were the people who lied about the polar bears. They found 4 dead bears after a huge arctic hurricane like storm and assumed there must have been 40 dead bears since 10 bears were seen swimming alive before the storm. They knew they had no evidence but spoke about "the fingerprints of evidence". We live in an age of proliferation of junk science.

 

[IGBT]

The best were the people who lied about the polar bears. They found 4 dead bears after a huge arctic hurricane like storm and assumed there must have been 40 dead bears since 10 bears were seen swimming alive before the storm. They knew they had no evidence but spoke about "the fingerprints of evidence". We live in an age of proliferation of junk science.

junk science embraced by global warming religionists i.e. eco-theists. They are the submissive fundamentalists.

 

[microbial]

Holy eco-theist, batman... The right-wing conservative echo-chamber (real dogma junkies) have been sent out their marching orders...and they sure are dutifully spewing todays preaching choir.

That internet thingy is pretty handy if you want to fool the minions into repeating whatever gospel is forced-fed them...

http://www.realclimate.org/

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: microbial
Holy eco-theist, batman... The right-wing conservative echo-chamber (real dogma junkies) have been sent out their marching orders...and they sure are dutifully spewing todays preaching choir.

That internet thingy is pretty handy if you want to fool the minions into repeating whatever gospel is forced-fed them...

http://www.realclimate.org/

Heh, I was just about to post that link as well.. Their latest post:

Interesting news this weekend. Apparently everything we?ve done in our entire careers is a ?MASSIVE lie? (sic) because all of radiative physics, climate history, the instrumental record, modeling and satellite observations turn out to be based on 12 trees in an obscure part of Siberia. Who knew?



I'm absolutely not a climate scientist, but I've done work for some of them and the stuff they're doing is spot on research. To question the entire thing based on 1 report from Siberia? Ridiculous. But hey, if it helps you sleep at night...

 

[jonks]

Yay, global warming debunked. Now it's only a matter of time till bigfoot, loch ness and that 9/11 thing gets exposed for the hoaxes they are. thanks! :thumbsup:

 

[NeoV]

I love that Barry and his boys are all worked up that a scientist who is very much in the middle of the global warming discussion - theorized in 1971 that we were headed for another ice age - and they are using that as some sort of 'proof' that the science behind 'global warming' is wrong.

Are you telling me that the data available - 38 years ago - and the technology available - 38 years ago - would lead to the same conclusions?

What do all of the temperature trends tell you has happened in the past 38 years, since his original claim?

In fact, wasn't there a very recent article discussing how we may in fact be putting off another ice age with all of the unnatural co2 emmissions?

People that lied about the polar bears? I suppose all of the ice missing is a big hoax too?

How is it that the extreme right has taken the 'no fucking way GW is real' position? What caused that? Is it Gore alone that pushed you people off the edge?

What is wrong with looking into ways to produce less pollution?

What is wrong with looking into ways to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources?

What is wrong with giving less money to parts of the world that really don't like us very much?

Even if you don't believe in GW, or MMGW, whatever you want to call it - put aside your hatred of all things Gore - and ask yourself those 3 questions - then come back and tell me why you are so gung-ho against it.

Full article from the realclimate site here - and Barry, I challenge you to read it

HERE

my favorite part

"Science is made up of people challenging assumptions and other peoples? results with the overall desire of getting closer to the ?truth?. There is nothing wrong with people putting together new chronologies of tree rings or testing the robustness of previous results to updated data or new methodologies. What is objectionable is the conflation of technical criticism with unsupported, unjustified and unverified accusations of scientific misconduct. Steve McIntyre keeps insisting that he should be treated like a professional. But how professional is it to continue to slander scientists with vague insinuations and spin made-up tales of perfidy out of the whole cloth instead of submitting his work for peer-review? He continues to take absolutely no responsibility for the ridiculous fantasies and exaggerations that his supporters broadcast, apparently being happy to bask in their acclaim rather than correct any of the misrepresentations he has engendered. If he wants to make a change, he has a clear choice; to continue to play Don Quixote for the peanut gallery or to produce something constructive that is actually worthy of publication"

Really nothing else to say.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: NeoV
I love that Barry and his boys are all worked up that a scientist who is very much in the middle of the global warming discussion - theorized in 1971 that we were headed for another ice age - and they are using that as some sort of 'proof' that the science behind 'global warming' is wrong.

Are you telling me that the data available - 38 years ago - and the technology available - 38 years ago - would lead to the same conclusions?

What do all of the temperature trends tell you has happened in the past 38 years, since his original claim?

In fact, wasn't there a very recent article discussing how we may in fact be putting off another ice age with all of the unnatural co2 emmissions?

People that lied about the polar bears? I suppose all of the ice missing is a big hoax too?

How is it that the extreme right has taken the 'no fucking way GW is real' position? What caused that? Is it Gore alone that pushed you people off the edge?

What is wrong with looking into ways to produce less pollution?

What is wrong with looking into ways to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources?

What is wrong with giving less money to parts of the world that really don't like us very much?

Even if you don't believe in GW, or MMGW, whatever you want to call it - put aside your hatred of all things Gore - and ask yourself those 3 questions - then come back and tell me why you are so gung-ho against it.

Full article from the realclimate site here - and Barry, I challenge you to read it

HERE

my favorite part

"Science is made up of people challenging assumptions and other peoples? results with the overall desire of getting closer to the ?truth?. There is nothing wrong with people putting together new chronologies of tree rings or testing the robustness of previous results to updated data or new methodologies. What is objectionable is the conflation of technical criticism with unsupported, unjustified and unverified accusations of scientific misconduct. Steve McIntyre keeps insisting that he should be treated like a professional. But how professional is it to continue to slander scientists with vague insinuations and spin made-up tales of perfidy out of the whole cloth instead of submitting his work for peer-review? He continues to take absolutely no responsibility for the ridiculous fantasies and exaggerations that his supporters broadcast, apparently being happy to bask in their acclaim rather than correct any of the misrepresentations he has engendered. If he wants to make a change, he has a clear choice; to continue to play Don Quixote for the peanut gallery or to produce something constructive that is actually worthy of publication"

Really nothing else to say.

You really should make an attempt to understand. I don't know how many times you've been told that this isn't about pollution, energy dependence, or money....everybody wants what you want...capeesh? This is a debate about MMGW...what's truth and what's fiction...nothing more, nothing less. Why do people make fun of Gore...because of his lies and hypocrisy. I'm not hearing hate...I'm hearing people calling a spade a spade. I love your RealClimate quote above...they hate McIntyre for exposing the 'hockey stick' lie and they personally attack him...hmmmm...curious that 'scientists react in such ways. You do understand that RealClimate is extremely biased...no? You appear to be only superficially interested in the subject as I've seen nothing from you to indicate that you've actually made a serious effort to understand the subject...much less the arguments being made. I have a sugeestion for you...spend some time in the RealClimate forums since you seem to think these guys are the 'experts'. Look for threads that address 'unpopular' studies and read the discourse between the study authors, scientists and the RealClimate folks. If you have an ounce of objectivity...you'll come to realize how these folks operate...when clearly outmatched...they divert...time after time. Agenda driven 'science' FTL.