Thank you easy, I would still criticise any scientific paper if the researchers decided that they needed to "adjust" the data. The example of a change of location is a good one. Presumably data from the old site is not concurrent with data from the new site, on what information is the adjustment therefore made?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Is this Climate Change Malarky a money making Con or not?
Money making Con or not?
Yes
0%
No
0%
7 votes
Sexpert
To give a fairly common example;
If a reporting station back in the 1950's say, was located in open countryside near a small village, and then say throughout the 60's and 70's, urbanasitaion caused it to now be in a built up area (less windchill, more heat emissions and solar heat retention by buildings etc.) undoubtedly, the readings would be artificially high when compared to pre-urbanisation days - these are referred to as Urban Heat Islands, or UHIs.
Now, if there were say 4 or 5 other recording stations in the fairly local vicinity who's immediate envrionments had not changed, and say, their readings all showed a general rise in temperature consistent with a general trend of .5 deg per century, but the aforementioned one was indicating a trend of 2.0 deg per century, and if the origin of this departure co-incided with the aforementioned urbanisation, then it would be reasonable and valid to attribute the difference to the change in the immediate environment of that recording station.
Thus, the data from that station would be adjusted to homogenise it's data, so as to elicit the true trend in temperatures.
What the CRU people did, being absolutely incensed that in fact the data was showing cooling for the last 10 years, despite the general trend being the same as it has been for 11,000 years, flying totally in the face of their fervently held conviction that the slight increase in CO2 absolutely must must must be causing rapid warming, they took random sets of data from recording stations which showed cooling, fudged them to show excessive warming (despite other weather stations showing nothing of the sort) and then averaged them with the other stations resulting in a graph showing a general increase in temperature at a rate greater than that prior to industrialisation, and showing that rate increasing rapidly over the last 20 years. The hockey stick graph
What they did in essence, fuming that the data did not support their theories, they falsified/fabricated it under the name of homogenisation, they wrote and commissioned the writing of computer programs to do this, rather than just cross the figures out and write new ones in crayon
. they refused to share their data and program code, even after legitimate requests under the Freedom of Information Act from other scientists.
So, somebody, finally, for whatever reason, decided all this really should be in the public domain, and they perpetrated the leak. It's only now that other scientists are analysing what they did, that we can see the extent of their fraud.
If a reporting station back in the 1950's say, was located in open countryside near a small village, and then say throughout the 60's and 70's, urbanasitaion caused it to now be in a built up area (less windchill, more heat emissions and solar heat retention by buildings etc.) undoubtedly, the readings would be artificially high when compared to pre-urbanisation days - these are referred to as Urban Heat Islands, or UHIs.
Now, if there were say 4 or 5 other recording stations in the fairly local vicinity who's immediate envrionments had not changed, and say, their readings all showed a general rise in temperature consistent with a general trend of .5 deg per century, but the aforementioned one was indicating a trend of 2.0 deg per century, and if the origin of this departure co-incided with the aforementioned urbanisation, then it would be reasonable and valid to attribute the difference to the change in the immediate environment of that recording station.
Thus, the data from that station would be adjusted to homogenise it's data, so as to elicit the true trend in temperatures.
What the CRU people did, being absolutely incensed that in fact the data was showing cooling for the last 10 years, despite the general trend being the same as it has been for 11,000 years, flying totally in the face of their fervently held conviction that the slight increase in CO2 absolutely must must must be causing rapid warming, they took random sets of data from recording stations which showed cooling, fudged them to show excessive warming (despite other weather stations showing nothing of the sort) and then averaged them with the other stations resulting in a graph showing a general increase in temperature at a rate greater than that prior to industrialisation, and showing that rate increasing rapidly over the last 20 years. The hockey stick graph
What they did in essence, fuming that the data did not support their theories, they falsified/fabricated it under the name of homogenisation, they wrote and commissioned the writing of computer programs to do this, rather than just cross the figures out and write new ones in crayon
. they refused to share their data and program code, even after legitimate requests under the Freedom of Information Act from other scientists.So, somebody, finally, for whatever reason, decided all this really should be in the public domain, and they perpetrated the leak. It's only now that other scientists are analysing what they did, that we can see the extent of their fraud.
Quote by Ben_welshminx
Thats really terrible Easy. Can you can point me to the published research papers exposing the fabrication so that I can have a looksie.
I don't believe there are any published papers yet, Ben, that's why I belive that it's a little premature to claim that the whole global warming theory has been debunked.....and I'm a sceptic.
Sexpert
Quote by Ben_welshminx
Thats really terrible Easy. Can you can point me to the published research papers exposing the fabrication so that I can have a looksie.
See this thread and the other one on climate change for a number of links to get started
Sexpert
Quote by Max777
Thats really terrible Easy. Can you can point me to the published research papers exposing the fabrication so that I can have a looksie.
I don't believe there are any published papers yet, Ben, that's why I belive that it's a little premature to claim that the whole global warming theory has been debunked.....and I'm a sceptic.
No, it's way too early for formal published papers - though no doubt several are in progress - what there is, is a growing amount of analyses by independent scientists who, now they have access to the data and some of the program code, are finding instances of data fabrication and tampering beyond all belief - these are being published in on-line summaries and on blog sites, a number of which have been posted earlier on this and the other thread.
I'm not writing a dissertation for peer review on this, so haven't been particularly collecting all the references
- here's one I did bookmark that someone posted earlier Sexpert
Sex God
Copied from USA Today comment pages: Only an opinion but some pretty interesting stuff.
"As much fraud as the published Freedom of Information Act files reveals, many people are still left saying “One side says one thing. The other says another. How can I know what to think?â€
The answer is to quit waiting for someone else to tell you what to think, and actually use that hat rack. Its really not hard once you break out of the conditioning to leave it up to the experts.
After a brief look at the situation the average person grasps it quickly, and the dreadful scope of the scam starts to sink in.
First I want to very briefly restate their contention: Man made increases in CO2 is causing the Earth to become warmer by trapping solar heat.
HOW this so-called "trapping" occurs is treated like a clumsily guarded secret, but its done by CO2 not being quite as transparent to heat like it is to visible light. Instead of heat passing through to the ground, a very small part of it heats the CO2. Unfortunately for the Chicken Littles out there, this microscopic effect can be calculated and measured. It is quantifiable. It doesn't have to be treated like magic and accepted "Because We Say So."
First, lets look at the quantity: There isn't nearly enough CO2 on Earth to even begin to warn the Earth.
Here's how you know:
CO2 is a trace gas, measured in parts per million, 329 ppm according to Wikipedia.
That makes it % of the atmosphere at sea level.
If it were evenly distributed all the way to the top of the atmosphere it would be only 3/4 of an ounce for each square inch of the Earth's surface. That's not much.
(.00329x14.7 PSI x16 =.7738 ounces )
The amount of heat energy that 3/4 ounce of any gas can hold is minute. But CO2 is heavier than the two major gases, Nitrogen and Oxygen, which make up 99 percent of the atmosphere, and exists in only the lower two miles, making is much less than 3/4 of an ounce.
Now we get to the good part. From a conclusion you can tell what facts and assumptions produced it.
Here are the facts:
1. Oxygen and Nitrogen are transparent to heat, which passes through them without heating them.
2. Co2 is slightly opaque to heat, and is slightly heated by it. (This is described with complex crap about molecules vibrating, like CO2 is the only thing that vibrates when heated. Everything does.)
Now here are the assumptions that MUST be made to conclude that CO2 is causing a global temperature rise:
1. CO2 is the dominant Greenhouse gas.
2. There is enough CO2 to carry over heat from one day to the next, producing a buildup.
3. Only atmospheric gases are heated by the sun.
Yes, that's right. Assumption #3 has to be made. You see, generally speaking, sunlight does not heat the air. It passes through the air and heats the ground. The ground then heats the air. And ground heat IS carried over to the next day, even doing some buildup. But it doesn't get credit, because it isn't man made.
When the ground is covered by snow, CO2 has its chance to prove its ability to trap heat from the sun. Instead, the air remains cold, with the snow melting slowly where it is clean and warmed only by the air. But where there is DIRT in the snow it melts much faster, because most heat passed through the CO2 and heated the dirt. When some ground is exposed the melting really speeds up, because the warmed ground warms the air. You can see it clearly in the melt patterns after this most recent blizzard not stopped by Global Warming.
Now consider the weight of 1 square inch of dirt extending down into the ground, and compare that with 3/4 ounce of CO2 extending upward, and how much heat energy can be retained by each. Its no contest!
It is readily obvious that the ground has so much greater participation in the process that the CO2 doesn't even deserve an honorable mention. Therefore, because CO2 gets all the credit, it has to be assumed that only atmospheric gases are heated by the sun.
Oh, for #1, do a search on Greenhouse Gases and click on Wikipedia. (
You will find the IPCC admitting that atmospheric water vapor has about four times the greenhouse effect of CO2.
Water vapor comes and goes. Sometimes more, sometimes less, and easily able to overwhelm the effect of CO2.
Now lets go for an easy visual example:
In the fall when you are fearing your tomatoes will get frostbitten, you know if it will frost by checking the sky. If there is a little overcast, there cannot be a frost, because the slight cloud cover will block the heat trying to radiate out into space, and reflect it back. You never check the CO2 level, because you don't even think of this super greenhouse gas having any effect..
But if there is a starry sky, the heat in your tomatoes can radiate out into space unimpeded, with CO2 just standing there with a dumb look on its face, not lifting a finger to help. Instead of blocking and retaining heat until dawn it lets it pass right on through, and lets the temperature drop like a rock.
Want another visual example? The same thing goes for frost on your car. If you depend only on CO2, you will be scraping in the morning. But if there is any cloud cover at all, you won't.
These are things you already knew. So why did you let someone get away with blowing smoke up your backside ? Assumption that they were the experts, and you weren't qualified to think!
And when the ground heats up, more water evaporates, creating a cooling effect, carrying heat up with it for release into space, spreading out in a cloud that reflects heat from the sun back into space, and mops the floor with CO2's but.
And when the temperature drops, the clouds fall as rain, once again letting sunlight in to warm the Earth. This is a natural regulating effect, so that no matter what CO2 might do, the clouds will adjust to make it not matter.
Want another example of CO2's ability to absorb heat from sunlight vs water vapor ? Remember a hot summer day when the sun was hot on your skin, blocked by the trace gas CO2. Then remember when a cloud came over, showing what it could do. Case closed.
And for #2, the CO2 so-called theory does have to assume that there is enough CO2 to actually block and retain enough heat from day to day to heat the Earth. But by now it is clear that this is ridiculous.
What CO2 DOES do is become the physical body of our crops that feed the world's hungry. The more CO2, the better the crops do, and the better people eat.
CO2 also helps trigger your next breath when you are not thinking about it, like when you sleep. Do a search on sleep apnea in relation to elevation (remember, it thins out at higher elevation.) Check out Boulder Colorado for instance.
And this trace gas is now listed as a pollutant ? To be reduced ?
But what about the thinning polar ice caps?
Have you seen any photos of melt water standing on the surface of the ice?
If the ice were melting from warmer air, wouldn't it melt from the top down?
Since it is not, it must be melting from the bottom up.
Can that be due to warmer air? "
"As much fraud as the published Freedom of Information Act files reveals, many people are still left saying “One side says one thing. The other says another. How can I know what to think?â€
The answer is to quit waiting for someone else to tell you what to think, and actually use that hat rack. Its really not hard once you break out of the conditioning to leave it up to the experts.
After a brief look at the situation the average person grasps it quickly, and the dreadful scope of the scam starts to sink in.
First I want to very briefly restate their contention: Man made increases in CO2 is causing the Earth to become warmer by trapping solar heat.
HOW this so-called "trapping" occurs is treated like a clumsily guarded secret, but its done by CO2 not being quite as transparent to heat like it is to visible light. Instead of heat passing through to the ground, a very small part of it heats the CO2. Unfortunately for the Chicken Littles out there, this microscopic effect can be calculated and measured. It is quantifiable. It doesn't have to be treated like magic and accepted "Because We Say So."
First, lets look at the quantity: There isn't nearly enough CO2 on Earth to even begin to warn the Earth.
Here's how you know:
CO2 is a trace gas, measured in parts per million, 329 ppm according to Wikipedia.
That makes it % of the atmosphere at sea level.
If it were evenly distributed all the way to the top of the atmosphere it would be only 3/4 of an ounce for each square inch of the Earth's surface. That's not much.
(.00329x14.7 PSI x16 =.7738 ounces )
The amount of heat energy that 3/4 ounce of any gas can hold is minute. But CO2 is heavier than the two major gases, Nitrogen and Oxygen, which make up 99 percent of the atmosphere, and exists in only the lower two miles, making is much less than 3/4 of an ounce.
Now we get to the good part. From a conclusion you can tell what facts and assumptions produced it.
Here are the facts:
1. Oxygen and Nitrogen are transparent to heat, which passes through them without heating them.
2. Co2 is slightly opaque to heat, and is slightly heated by it. (This is described with complex crap about molecules vibrating, like CO2 is the only thing that vibrates when heated. Everything does.)
Now here are the assumptions that MUST be made to conclude that CO2 is causing a global temperature rise:
1. CO2 is the dominant Greenhouse gas.
2. There is enough CO2 to carry over heat from one day to the next, producing a buildup.
3. Only atmospheric gases are heated by the sun.
Yes, that's right. Assumption #3 has to be made. You see, generally speaking, sunlight does not heat the air. It passes through the air and heats the ground. The ground then heats the air. And ground heat IS carried over to the next day, even doing some buildup. But it doesn't get credit, because it isn't man made.
When the ground is covered by snow, CO2 has its chance to prove its ability to trap heat from the sun. Instead, the air remains cold, with the snow melting slowly where it is clean and warmed only by the air. But where there is DIRT in the snow it melts much faster, because most heat passed through the CO2 and heated the dirt. When some ground is exposed the melting really speeds up, because the warmed ground warms the air. You can see it clearly in the melt patterns after this most recent blizzard not stopped by Global Warming.
Now consider the weight of 1 square inch of dirt extending down into the ground, and compare that with 3/4 ounce of CO2 extending upward, and how much heat energy can be retained by each. Its no contest!
It is readily obvious that the ground has so much greater participation in the process that the CO2 doesn't even deserve an honorable mention. Therefore, because CO2 gets all the credit, it has to be assumed that only atmospheric gases are heated by the sun.
Oh, for #1, do a search on Greenhouse Gases and click on Wikipedia. (
You will find the IPCC admitting that atmospheric water vapor has about four times the greenhouse effect of CO2.
Water vapor comes and goes. Sometimes more, sometimes less, and easily able to overwhelm the effect of CO2.
Now lets go for an easy visual example:
In the fall when you are fearing your tomatoes will get frostbitten, you know if it will frost by checking the sky. If there is a little overcast, there cannot be a frost, because the slight cloud cover will block the heat trying to radiate out into space, and reflect it back. You never check the CO2 level, because you don't even think of this super greenhouse gas having any effect..
But if there is a starry sky, the heat in your tomatoes can radiate out into space unimpeded, with CO2 just standing there with a dumb look on its face, not lifting a finger to help. Instead of blocking and retaining heat until dawn it lets it pass right on through, and lets the temperature drop like a rock.
Want another visual example? The same thing goes for frost on your car. If you depend only on CO2, you will be scraping in the morning. But if there is any cloud cover at all, you won't.
These are things you already knew. So why did you let someone get away with blowing smoke up your backside ? Assumption that they were the experts, and you weren't qualified to think!
And when the ground heats up, more water evaporates, creating a cooling effect, carrying heat up with it for release into space, spreading out in a cloud that reflects heat from the sun back into space, and mops the floor with CO2's but.
And when the temperature drops, the clouds fall as rain, once again letting sunlight in to warm the Earth. This is a natural regulating effect, so that no matter what CO2 might do, the clouds will adjust to make it not matter.
Want another example of CO2's ability to absorb heat from sunlight vs water vapor ? Remember a hot summer day when the sun was hot on your skin, blocked by the trace gas CO2. Then remember when a cloud came over, showing what it could do. Case closed.
And for #2, the CO2 so-called theory does have to assume that there is enough CO2 to actually block and retain enough heat from day to day to heat the Earth. But by now it is clear that this is ridiculous.
What CO2 DOES do is become the physical body of our crops that feed the world's hungry. The more CO2, the better the crops do, and the better people eat.
CO2 also helps trigger your next breath when you are not thinking about it, like when you sleep. Do a search on sleep apnea in relation to elevation (remember, it thins out at higher elevation.) Check out Boulder Colorado for instance.
And this trace gas is now listed as a pollutant ? To be reduced ?
But what about the thinning polar ice caps?
Have you seen any photos of melt water standing on the surface of the ice?
If the ice were melting from warmer air, wouldn't it melt from the top down?
Since it is not, it must be melting from the bottom up.
Can that be due to warmer air? "
Sexpert
What he said
If it scares people and can be taxed, then tax it. I don't claim to be educated in the ins and outs of climate change, but "global warming" as it's talked about in the media is so closely related to too many blatant cons such as hybrid/electric cars, carbon offsetting and fuel tax that I cannot take it seriously.
Well, now I've heard it all.
In Brussels today, Gordon Brown is pledging over 3 years from the UK coffers to fund developing nations achieve climate change targets.
Gordon Brown was asked, given that the UK is effectively bankrupt, how he was going to fund it. He replied, if I understood him correctly, that this will generate 400,000 jobs in the UK from which the funds will be forthcoming.
The guys a megalomaniac!
He also wants a signed written agreement at Copenhagen within 6 months.
I wonder why that is.
Could it be that he knows he won't be in power then nor with responsibility for having to find the money he has pledged but in the meantime he is seen as "having saved the world" as he so crassly suggested in the House not long ago?
It's a con and the people of Britain will be paying for this man's delusions of grandeur for many, many years to come.
In Brussels today, Gordon Brown is pledging over 3 years from the UK coffers to fund developing nations achieve climate change targets.
Gordon Brown was asked, given that the UK is effectively bankrupt, how he was going to fund it. He replied, if I understood him correctly, that this will generate 400,000 jobs in the UK from which the funds will be forthcoming.
The guys a megalomaniac!
He also wants a signed written agreement at Copenhagen within 6 months.
I wonder why that is.
Could it be that he knows he won't be in power then nor with responsibility for having to find the money he has pledged but in the meantime he is seen as "having saved the world" as he so crassly suggested in the House not long ago?
It's a con and the people of Britain will be paying for this man's delusions of grandeur for many, many years to come.
i dont read much about this whole thing, but i feel the more people read the more confused they get.
when people say the ice caps are melting and we will be covered in water how?? if ice weighs the same as water then melted it wont make the levels rise any more will it?
i know we have floods, but thats to do with rain and drainage surely? if we keep covering the land in tarmac and concreete then the rain has no where to soak into the ground, maybe thats why its getting hotter?
recyclying, the energy it takes to carry the product home, wash the tin, the water used to wash it then put it out or take it to recycle, the petrol used to collect it or take it there etc etc, does all that effort really out weigh the enviromental cost of just binning it?
the answer is less packaging or more degradable packing i think.
if the world is heating up as the gas cant escape then why did they stop us using hair spray? if we had carried on teh hole would be big enough for all this gas to escape wouldnt it?
yes some og this is tounge in cheek but my end thoughts are yes i think we have global warming, does it deserve the panic or taxation and money making scams we are facing? NO.
xxx fem xx
when people say the ice caps are melting and we will be covered in water how?? if ice weighs the same as water then melted it wont make the levels rise any more will it?
i know we have floods, but thats to do with rain and drainage surely? if we keep covering the land in tarmac and concreete then the rain has no where to soak into the ground, maybe thats why its getting hotter?
recyclying, the energy it takes to carry the product home, wash the tin, the water used to wash it then put it out or take it to recycle, the petrol used to collect it or take it there etc etc, does all that effort really out weigh the enviromental cost of just binning it?
the answer is less packaging or more degradable packing i think.
if the world is heating up as the gas cant escape then why did they stop us using hair spray? if we had carried on teh hole would be big enough for all this gas to escape wouldnt it?
yes some og this is tounge in cheek but my end thoughts are yes i think we have global warming, does it deserve the panic or taxation and money making scams we are facing? NO.
xxx fem xx
Quote by fem_4_taboo
when people say the ice caps are melting and we will be covered in water how?? if ice weighs the same as water then melted it wont make the levels rise any more will it?
Ice is lighter than water, hence why it floats. when it melts, which is due to the sea temperature rising and not air temperature, the the frozen ice melts and the solid volume above the sea gets added to the sea volume already there, therefore we get a rise in sea level.
Quote by fem_4_taboo
if the world is heating up as the gas cant escape then why did they stop us using hair spray? if we had carried on teh hole would be big enough for all this gas to escape wouldnt it?
yes some og this is tounge in cheek but my end thoughts are yes i think we have global warming, does it deserve the panic or taxation and money making scams we are facing? NO.
xxx fem xx
I take it the CFC comment was written tongue in cheek...but to re-iterate, CFC's combined in the high rarefied troposphere to create some right nasty chemicals that reduced the amount of ozone covering the poles. Ozone depletion causes increases in solar rays, warming the atmosphere, increasing risk of skin cancers etc. it depletes our protection layer.
I have read the arguments put forward above and the links that have been given. Following on from that research it is still apparent that greenhouse gases, of which co2 is just one of many, created by man are detrimental to the Earth's atmosphere and therefore to life on this planet.
We know the gases that cause the warming aren't connected to the sun/volcanoes/earth plate movements because they are man-made gases and chemicals that have the biggest greenhouse effect.
In all the major reports written by the 3 main research centres, the facts are clear. the earth is warming, the rate at which the earth is warming has increased and the increase is linked to the modern industrial era.
Sexpert
Quote by fem_4_taboo
i dont read much about this whole thing, but i feel the more people read the more confused they get.
when people say the ice caps are melting and we will be covered in water how?? if ice weighs the same as water then melted it wont make the levels rise any more will it?
i know we have floods, but thats to do with rain and drainage surely? if we keep covering the land in tarmac and concreete then the rain has no where to soak into the ground, maybe thats why its getting hotter?
recyclying, the energy it takes to carry the product home, wash the tin, the water used to wash it then put it out or take it to recycle, the petrol used to collect it or take it there etc etc, does all that effort really out weigh the enviromental cost of just binning it?
the answer is less packaging or more degradable packing i think.
if the world is heating up as the gas cant escape then why did they stop us using hair spray? if we had carried on teh hole would be big enough for all this gas to escape wouldnt it?
yes some og this is tounge in cheek but my end thoughts are yes i think we have global warming, does it deserve the panic or taxation and money making scams we are facing? NO.
xxx fem xx
Nope - a bit wrong there.
If all the ice melts, then water levels will rise as a lot of the ice is above sea level and thus it's current displacement, even though ice is less dense than water, will be more than outweighed by the additional volume of water. But it won't be enough to cover all the land or anything like.
The earth has been warming for 11,000 years, with minor aberrations aside, at a fairly constant rate as we continue to come out of the last ice age - who knows when the next one will start. The issue with global warming is that the ecomentalists are saying that the RATE of change has increased since industrialisation - when in fact the data do not support their assertion.
The hole in the ozone layer has nothing to do with the so called greenhouse effect - O3 (ozone) is an unstable molecule, which naturally wants to revert to 02 - "normal" oxygen, however, conditions in the upper atmosphere constantly re-create it and it should be in a state of equilibrium, i.e., the rate of creation matching the rate of decay. Its purpose is to shield the earth from too much Ultra Violet light which would be damaging to some life forms (including humans). In the case of the ozone layer, this was good science CFCs (chlorofluorcarbons) used as propellants in aerosols and as coolants in fridges, were being released in to the atmosphere and upsetting the dynamic equilibrium of the Ozone cycle, causing it to be destroyed faster than it could be re-created. This resulted in a hole in the ozone layer. Thus, CFCs were banned and the Ozone layer has recovered significantly, and continues to do so - thankfully.
No-one is talking about the gas escaping - that just doesn't happen (to any great extent), as gravity holds the atmosphere in place
I agree though, the building of houses and covering of natural land with tarmac, do have an effect on surface water drainage and contribute to flooding.
A lot of re-cycling is hokum - most of it just ends up in landfill as it is cheaper for the re-cyclers to pay to dump and pocket the money we're paying them to re-cycle. I don't re-cycle glass (not that I use much), as it takes more energy to melt it down and re-process it than it does to make new glass - and we're not short of sand.
ans....yes it was but the russians, indians, chinese and sudanese fucked up goldman sachs, j.p. morgand chase and morgan stanley's plans for a worldwide carbon tax by sending out e-mails on falsified data and text messages about behind the scenes negotiations..........fukin modern technology....damm
In a June 2003 email to Jones and company, Mann discussed the notion of expanding CRU charts to 2 millennia, in an effort to try to contain the putative MWP. No deception in that, I suppose. Of course, an honest 2000 year reconstruction, such as this one from , adapted from a 2005 Moberg et al. temperature history derived from tree-rings and lake and ocean sediments, would actually emphasize rather than “contain†the MWP:
Any questions why Mann and friends work so diligently to "contain" (hide) the MWP?
As you can see, the post-LIA warming that began around 1850 is neither unprecedented nor spectacular. And certainly not worth rewiring the economic circuitry of the planet over.
And the CRU/IPCC reconstructions have been counterfeited for the express purpose of hiding that very fact.
After all, the stakes are enormous – perhaps trillions of dollars and unquestionably every American’s personal liberties. Tomorrow, over 20,000 delegates from 193 nations will gather in Copenhagen to craft an agreement which would not only force American power consumption to levels equal to those of about 1910, but would also have us pay reparations for an imaginary “climate debt†we’ve accumulated by building the world’s greatest economy of all time. That debt is based on the amount of CO2 our financial growth has purportedly pumped into the atmosphere, which, according to the conclusions of the IPCC, based largely upon reports from the CRU, has selfishly imperiled the planet by inducing climate change.
Of course, asking Americans to pay reparations based on the claim they’ve done harm to other nations by spoiling the climate is like asking me to pay damages to my neighbor based on his claim that he can’t sell his house because my great-grandmother’s ghost is haunting it.
As many have known and Climategate has proven, either would be equally preposterous.
But at least belief in ghosts is only marginally inspired by fraud.
Well it seems we have had the coldest winter for 20 years in the UK.
Now are the climate change believers going to give me a reason why this could be?
These people I believe do not know their arses from their elbows, and I also believe it is all a myth and a brilliant way of conning us out of money, on the crap pretext of " saving the planet ".
Now are the climate change believers going to give me a reason why this could be?
These people I believe do not know their arses from their elbows, and I also believe it is all a myth and a brilliant way of conning us out of money, on the crap pretext of " saving the planet ".
Quote by flower411
I cannot remember them saying this five years ago, or come to think of it, less than five years.
The first paragraph says.... "Scientists have found the first hard evidence to show that this actually happened 8,200 years ago, when the climate in parts of the northern hemisphere cooled dramatically after a period of global warming".
Cannot seem to recall there being cars or tellys left on what 8200 years ago?
Which leads me to believe it is nothing to do with man, but purely a natural Earth cycle?
Maybe I am missing something there?
Was man doing things then that lead to Global warming that long ago?
global warming has been renamed climate change in the last year. the climate always changes. climate change is a wall street/goldman sachs city of london scam to introduce a carbon tax on all the people of the planet paid to BANKERS !
if you reduce the amount of carbon produced by poor countries whose inhabitants are at subsitance level, you will kill them by the millions. thank goodness for the technology of e-mails and texts.
if you reduce the amount of carbon produced by poor countries whose inhabitants are at subsitance level, you will kill them by the millions. thank goodness for the technology of e-mails and texts.
They have been killing "poor" people for decades.
When they got DDT banned they effectively killed several million by malaria.
What you have to remember about organisations like the green party and FOE is that they do not like people .
The green party would like this countries population to be a sustainable 16 million.
The problem being that the method used to obtain this 16M population would be birth control...which would mean less young people....and a heavier drain on already strained public finances....and would not work. The only realistic way to lower the population is not birth-control, but life-length control...which the green party is very well aware of....and I suspect less than idealistic reasons for the clamour for euthanasia to become legal.
The raising of living-levels in places like India and China is also placing a large strain upon resources (which are already becoming harder to sustain) and that is only going to become worse as time goes on.
I expect to see armed conflicts becoming more frequent, leading to major warfare over resources soon (and I mean in terms of world-wide conflict).
I would be surprised if that conflict did not use nuclear weapons.
When they got DDT banned they effectively killed several million by malaria.
What you have to remember about organisations like the green party and FOE is that they do not like people .
The green party would like this countries population to be a sustainable 16 million.
The problem being that the method used to obtain this 16M population would be birth control...which would mean less young people....and a heavier drain on already strained public finances....and would not work. The only realistic way to lower the population is not birth-control, but life-length control...which the green party is very well aware of....and I suspect less than idealistic reasons for the clamour for euthanasia to become legal.
The raising of living-levels in places like India and China is also placing a large strain upon resources (which are already becoming harder to sustain) and that is only going to become worse as time goes on.
I expect to see armed conflicts becoming more frequent, leading to major warfare over resources soon (and I mean in terms of world-wide conflict).
I would be surprised if that conflict did not use nuclear weapons.
Sex God
Quote by JTS
They have been killing "poor" people for decades.
When they got DDT banned they effectively killed several million by malaria.
What you have to remember about organisations like the green party and FOE is that they do not like people .
The green party would like this countries population to be a sustainable 16 million.
The problem being that the method used to obtain this 16M population would be birth control...which would mean less young people....and a heavier drain on already strained public finances....and would not work. The only realistic way to lower the population is not birth-control, but life-length control...which the green party is very well aware of....and I suspect less than idealistic reasons for the clamour for euthanasia to become legal.
The raising of living-levels in places like India and China is also placing a large strain upon resources (which are already becoming harder to sustain) and that is only going to become worse as time goes on.
I expect to see armed conflicts becoming more frequent, leading to major warfare over resources soon (and I mean in terms of world-wide conflict).
I would be surprised if that conflict did not use nuclear weapons.
Don't wars normally come along at times of great depression and unemployment? h...hang on that's now!
What I don't get about any of this is that... the reason we're having this discussion is that an error was found in a study done at the University of East Anglia. One piece of research, by one group of researchers, in one university. Doesn't mean the whole thing's bullshit, does it? I mean... it's the University of East Anglia for Christ's sake! They're going to fuck up from time to time.
If Oxford, Cambridge, Yale and Harvard, and all the rest, produced good solid science that said driving your cars as much as you like is fine, and one study at UEA said "Hang on a minute, global warming!", would you park up and walk?
Besides which, the pointing out of errors is integral to the way academic knowledge is developed. "You're wrong about that!"; "Oh yeah, let's have another look..." It doesn't mean the whole theory is buggered.
I'd have to ask, why do you WANT global warming to be wrong? Could it be because you don't want to have to change your life? Don't want to cycle to work or bother recycling your rubbish? You don't like the idea that your actions are fucking up the world for your children? Does that make you feel a little bit guilty? Would you rather it was all a big mistake?
Surely, even putting aside all the findings of the world's universities apart from UEA, it just makes sense that if we are spewing shit out into the atmosphere, that can't be good? I mean. When I go to London for a few days my snot goes black. That can't be good. Seriously, it just can't be good.
Surely, irrespective of how you massage your figures, it just makes sense that we should try to conserve what we've got? Think of it as being like your body. You've only got one. You should try not to pump it full of toxins. That would be like... smoking continuously and then wondering why you get sick.
You know for a long time the tobacco industry said smoking wasn't bad for you, and a lot of people believed it.
I cannot remember them saying this five years ago, or come to think of it, less than five years.
Erm. The article is from 2006, which is four years ago. And I can remember hearing about it when I was in high school, 15 years ago or so...
If Oxford, Cambridge, Yale and Harvard, and all the rest, produced good solid science that said driving your cars as much as you like is fine, and one study at UEA said "Hang on a minute, global warming!", would you park up and walk?
Besides which, the pointing out of errors is integral to the way academic knowledge is developed. "You're wrong about that!"; "Oh yeah, let's have another look..." It doesn't mean the whole theory is buggered.
I'd have to ask, why do you WANT global warming to be wrong? Could it be because you don't want to have to change your life? Don't want to cycle to work or bother recycling your rubbish? You don't like the idea that your actions are fucking up the world for your children? Does that make you feel a little bit guilty? Would you rather it was all a big mistake?
Surely, even putting aside all the findings of the world's universities apart from UEA, it just makes sense that if we are spewing shit out into the atmosphere, that can't be good? I mean. When I go to London for a few days my snot goes black. That can't be good. Seriously, it just can't be good.
Surely, irrespective of how you massage your figures, it just makes sense that we should try to conserve what we've got? Think of it as being like your body. You've only got one. You should try not to pump it full of toxins. That would be like... smoking continuously and then wondering why you get sick.
You know for a long time the tobacco industry said smoking wasn't bad for you, and a lot of people believed it.
Quote by kentswingers777
I cannot remember them saying this five years ago, or come to think of it, less than five years.
Erm. The article is from 2006, which is four years ago. And I can remember hearing about it when I was in high school, 15 years ago or so...
It was not an error.
The leaked (not stolen) emails and data revealed an interesting web of deception and false data. Not least of which was the program that forecast higher temperatures; that did so no matter what data was input to it.
I won't even go into the deliberate withholding of information, contrary to the Freedom of Information Act (probably because they had destroyed the base data)
Then we have the deliberate usage of selective weather/climate monitoring stations (only those showing higher temperatures used and others ignored)
The glaciers are melting...all gone by
I would like to think it was done with no malice intended...but I think it (all the man-made global-warming) was done for good old money....as in TRILLIONS of dollars...
Yes, the world is warming....but it has been warmer in the distant past....and a lot colder in the recent past....
Yes, London is dirty...as is Birmingham and Manchester....anywhere with large amounts of people living and working is dirty...but all are getting cleaner FAST....with all intending to restrict traffic to those that meet the most stringent emissions regulations (Euro4) and the soon to be introduced Euro 5.
So why all the Man-made-global-warming stories ?
Money. Loads of money. Shed-loads of money. Astronomically large shed-loads of money. More money that the most profligate government could spend in your lifetime. Your money.
I don't mind being scammed (the governments of this country have been doing it to me for more decades than I like to admit) but I get a bit miffed (well, a lot miffed) at being scammed by people telling me it is for my own good even if I don't know it (because they're brilliant scientists and I'm just a dollop of muck).
Well, they're NOT brilliants scientists...they're a load of CROOKS...lying through their teeth to abstract large amounts of money.
Just like all crooks. Except they have "degrees" (?)
The leaked (not stolen) emails and data revealed an interesting web of deception and false data. Not least of which was the program that forecast higher temperatures; that did so no matter what data was input to it.
In late November 2009, an anonymous hacker with the pseudonym “FOIA” posted confidential data onto a Russian server. The leaked information included a messy hodgepodge of e-mail exchanges, raw scientific data, comments from analysts, and programming, all of which were used by scientists informing the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. The hacked data appears to show that leading scientists have hidden or manipulated information that does not fit their climate-change thesis, blacklisted dissenting researchers, and circumvented freedom-of-information requests, possibly by destroying documents.
The leak, which has come to be known as Climategate, has undermined two of the most substantial assumptions underwriting the climate-change argument: that the science is accurate and that a consensus exists among scientists. Despite this, leaders in Washington and around the globe continued to pursue climate-change policy without pause
I won't even go into the deliberate withholding of information, contrary to the Freedom of Information Act (probably because they had destroyed the base data)
Then we have the deliberate usage of selective weather/climate monitoring stations (only those showing higher temperatures used and others ignored)
The glaciers are melting...all gone by
I would like to think it was done with no malice intended...but I think it (all the man-made global-warming) was done for good old money....as in TRILLIONS of dollars...
Yes, the world is warming....but it has been warmer in the distant past....and a lot colder in the recent past....
Yes, London is dirty...as is Birmingham and Manchester....anywhere with large amounts of people living and working is dirty...but all are getting cleaner FAST....with all intending to restrict traffic to those that meet the most stringent emissions regulations (Euro4) and the soon to be introduced Euro 5.
So why all the Man-made-global-warming stories ?
Money. Loads of money. Shed-loads of money. Astronomically large shed-loads of money. More money that the most profligate government could spend in your lifetime. Your money.
I don't mind being scammed (the governments of this country have been doing it to me for more decades than I like to admit) but I get a bit miffed (well, a lot miffed) at being scammed by people telling me it is for my own good even if I don't know it (because they're brilliant scientists and I'm just a dollop of muck).
Well, they're NOT brilliants scientists...they're a load of CROOKS...lying through their teeth to abstract large amounts of money.
Just like all crooks. Except they have "degrees" (?)
Quote by JTS
It was not an error.
The leaked (not stolen) emails and data revealed an interesting web of deception and false data. Not least of which was the program that forecast higher temperatures; that did so no matter what data was input to it.
In late November 2009, an anonymous hacker with the pseudonym “FOIA” posted confidential data onto a Russian server. The leaked information included a messy hodgepodge of e-mail exchanges, raw scientific data, comments from analysts, and programming, all of which were used by scientists informing the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. The hacked data appears to show that leading scientists have hidden or manipulated information that does not fit their climate-change thesis, blacklisted dissenting researchers, and circumvented freedom-of-information requests, possibly by destroying documents.
The leak, which has come to be known as Climategate, has undermined two of the most substantial assumptions underwriting the climate-change argument: that the science is accurate and that a consensus exists among scientists. Despite this, leaders in Washington and around the globe continued to pursue climate-change policy without pause
I won't even go into the deliberate withholding of information, contrary to the Freedom of Information Act (probably because they had destroyed the base data)
Then we have the deliberate usage of selective weather/climate monitoring stations (only those showing higher temperatures used and others ignored)
The glaciers are melting...all gone by
I would like to think it was done with no malice intended...but I think it (all the man-made global-warming) was done for good old money....as in TRILLIONS of dollars...
Yes, the world is warming....but it has been warmer in the distant past....and a lot colder in the recent past....
Yes, London is dirty...as is Birmingham and Manchester....anywhere with large amounts of people living and working is dirty...but all are getting cleaner FAST....with all intending to restrict traffic to those that meet the most stringent emissions regulations (Euro4) and the soon to be introduced Euro 5.
So why all the Man-made-global-warming stories ?
Money. Loads of money. Shed-loads of money. Astronomically large shed-loads of money. More money that the most profligate government could spend in your lifetime. Your money.
I don't mind being scammed (the governments of this country have been doing it to me for more decades than I like to admit) but I get a bit miffed (well, a lot miffed) at being scammed by people telling me it is for my own good even if I don't know it (because they're brilliant scientists and I'm just a dollop of muck).
Well, they're NOT brilliants scientists...they're a load of CROOKS...lying through their teeth to abstract large amounts of money.
Just like all crooks. Except they have "degrees" (?)
Bang on the money.
IF there was 100% conclusive proof, then us or the politicians would not be argueing about it. The mere fact we are is there is not that complete proof that it actually exists, BUT more important is that it is man made.
Until such time where they can prove it ( which I think they never will ), then I will carry on my life as normal but having to pay the extra ammount of money in various guises, to say it will help us all.
A clever ploy and an even cleverer con.
Sex God
Thought I had posted this link before
Below shows what lengths they will go too
Below shows what lengths they will go too
