Inconvenient Truth for Gore as Arctic Ice Claims Don't Add Up

[rambone]

I'll call them communists for you. You have to ask what is the goal? Save the planet or control the populace?
All you who profess to believe in Rights and Liberty, are too easily taken in by this bogus cause. It is a tool to let you willingly surrender your freedoms. I'll find the proof later but most all the Environmental groups are run by Communists.

I agree. I wrote a thread about this one time. Certain professional-environmentalists, specifically "climate alarmists," share all the same ideologies with the communists of old. Many of them are the exact same people. I provided a ton of examples and articles. If you have more to add to it, please do.

Environmentalist Green is the new Commie Red

When the solution for global warming includes something other than draining my wallet and fattening algore and other tin pot dictators wallets, I might start believing.

 

[hornadylnl]

What these hypocrit greenies aren't telling us is that they depend on us evil producers to scam us out of wealth to enrich themselves. What if the producers go Galt? Polution will be down but where will they get their money from?

 

[SavageEagle]

What these hypocrit greenies aren't telling us is that they depend on us evil producers to scam us out of wealth to enrich themselves. What if the producers go Galt? Polution will be down but where will they get their money from?

When we start working again. They won't stop. Why would they?

 

[antsi]

Quote:
So... you DO disagree with all of the scientific organization of the world (not a single one of which agree with your rant about climate change)? I thought my question was pretty simply, yet you failed to address it in any way...
I did address it. You just didn't like the answer.

It's a new kind of science.

All of the people who are Official Scientists get to vote. If it's an Official Scientist Organization, they get extra double plus votes. When the votes are tallied, whatever they voted for is declared True for All Eternity.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that these people do not talk like real scientists.

 

[Mgderf]

Al Gore also says there's a such thing as ManBearPig.

I'm sure the pollution we put on this Earth can't be good, but melting all the ice? I call B.S.

"No-one takes me cereally!" "I'm super cereal!"

 

[Tryin']

I just want to publicly thank dberkhead and antsi for their reasoned and informed arguments.
The tact and patience you have demonstrated is remarkable!

The tide is changing, and I await the day we will be free from such "scientific consensus"

Thank you again, and dburkhead, may I quote your statements on this topic?

 

[dburkhead]

I just want to publicly thank dberkhead and antsi for their reasoned and informed arguments.
The tact and patience you have demonstrated is remarkable!

The tide is changing, and I await the day we will be free from such "scientific consensus"

Thank you again, and dberkhead, may I quote your statements on this topic?

You're more than welcome. But I would prefer that you spell my name right.

 

[Wabatuckian]

 

[bigus_D]

I just want to publicly thank dberkhead and antsi for their reasoned and informed arguments.
The tact and patience you have demonstrated is remarkable!

The tide is changing, and I await the day we will be free from such "scientific consensus"

Thank you again, and dberkhead, may I quote your statements on this topic?

ME TOO!

 

[dburkhead]

Russians confirm that climate data tampered with:

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

Several different sources for this release, one from a Russian source. The others just recopying.
What the Russian papers say | Top Russian news and analysis online | 'RIA Novosti' newswire
Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming – Telegraph Blogs
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BOMBSHELL.pdf

And if anybody wants to check the original Russian:
Ú-Ãàçåòà - Áðèòàíñêèå ó÷åíûå íåäîîöåíèëè ðóññêèé êëèìàò

 

[bigus_D]

Russians confirm that climate data tampered with:



Several different sources for this release, one from a Russian source. The others just recopying.
What the Russian papers say | Top Russian news and analysis online | 'RIA Novosti' newswire
Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming – Telegraph Blogs
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BOMBSHELL.pdf

And if anybody wants to check the original Russian:
Ú-Ãàçåòà - Áðèòàíñêèå ó÷åíûå íåäîîöåíèëè ðóññêèé êëèìàò

'probably' tampered with.... and may have 'exaggerated'...

NOT, they tampered with the data... if they hadn't it would clearly show that global warming is a big hoax.

There is a HUGE difference between these two things.

Please remember, the leaked emails were choosen selectively and only included possibly damning content. The remaing mass of scientific data goes undisputed.

The scientific debate, including the issues in the referenced articles, are NOT about whether or not this is happening, the debate is only about how bad it is. Don't be fooled.

 

[BloodEclipse]

'probably' tampered with.... and may have 'exaggerated'...

NOT, they tampered with the data... if they hadn't it would clearly show that global warming is a big hoax.

There is a HUGE difference between these two things.

Admit it, you are...

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

'probably' tampered with.... and may have 'exaggerated'...

NOT, they tampered with the data... if they hadn't it would clearly show that global warming is a big hoax.

There is a HUGE difference between these two things.

Please remember, the leaked emails were choosen selectively and only included possibly damning content. The remaing mass of scientific data goes undisputed.

Ok so when TSHTF and your looking at the cracked can of food don't worry , it's only probably spoiled .

The scientific debate, including the issues in the referenced articles, are NOT about whether or not this is happening, the debate is only about how bad it is. Don't be fooled.

I think the real problem is that some EFR'S are getting uber rich while too many folks are arguing about who's right .

Don't worry about the other hand , looky here at this one .

 

[dburkhead]

'probably' tampered with.... and may have 'exaggerated'...

NOT, they tampered with the data... if they hadn't it would clearly show that global warming is a big hoax.

Those kind of "hedges" ("probably," "may have," etc.) are normal in actual science. Sweeping, absolute statements are the province of religion and political punditry.

There is a HUGE difference between these two things.

The Russian source is not claiming that they altered the Russian data. What they are claiming is that they cherry picked the data--excluding 75% of the Russian data which did not fit their "model."

Please remember, the leaked emails were choosen selectively and only included possibly damning content. The remaing mass of scientific data goes undisputed.

So if someone urinates in your cornflakes it's okay because most of the content of the bowl is the original corn flakes?

"A little bit of fraudulent content" is like being a little bit pregnant. Either they have scientific integrity or they do not. And the cited examples shows that they do not. Once that's established all that's left is haggling over price.

Justifying them because the remaining material (unlike the 62 MB that have been leaked) because it may not be fraudulent is like justifying a thief because of the money he didn't steal.

The only "fix" in that situation is to come clean and release all their data to independent verification, including verification by skeptics. Oh, wait a minute. They threw out their original data. Too late. There is no fix. They have committed scientific fraud and have dumped the one thing that, depending on what was in it, might have demonstrated that the fraud was an aberration and not "business as usual."

Had they been actual scientists they would have realized that keeping the data was important.

The scientific debate, including the issues in the referenced articles, are NOT about whether or not this is happening, the debate is only about how bad it is. Don't be fooled.

And the AGW folk are lying about how bad it is, selecting "worst cases" (the 25% of Russian data included) and excluding things that disagree with that worst case (the 75% not included).

Lies by omission are as much lies as lies by commission.

 

[bigus_D]

grasping at straws? I don't think so.

Sure, the scientific data is questionable. (in as much as it should be questioned) But this is ONE study. One of thousands. The possible errors/oversights/blatant lies resulted in only exaggeration (NOT a reversal of results).

Even if I totally agree with what dburkhead is saying, it still doesn't change the fact that global warming is happening... it only results in us agreeing that it is happening a little more slowly than we may have thought before.

p.s. those bendy straws are cool. I've got to get some of them.

 

[SavageEagle]

Alright. I've had enough of my calculator is bigger than yours. I'm sending in the G Team to finish you both off.

 

[dburkhead]

grasping at straws? I don't think so.

Sure, the scientific data is questionable. (in as much as it should be questioned) But this is ONE study. One of thousands. The possible errors/oversights/blatant lies resulted in only exaggeration (NOT a reversal of results).

Even if I totally agree with what dburkhead is saying, it still doesn't change the fact that global warming is happening... it only results in us agreeing that it is happening a little more slowly than we may have thought before.

p.s. those bendy straws are cool. I've got to get some of them.

The thing is, every time someone questions one of the various sets of studies and points out flaws in it, folk like you say "but that's just one study, all the rest say...."

I pointed out Hansen's graph--the one that models the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, and the late 19th century as an essentially flat line. That's been so thoroughly deconstructed that the only way you cannot know about it is to be completely ignorant of the discussion and controversy on the matter.

I pointed out Gore's graph, that shows CO2 changes trailing temperature changes over geological time (but with the graph conveniently displayed with time reversed so that it looks like temperature changes follow CO2 changes).

There are the double-standards and special pleading: an unusual warm spell? Global warming! an unusual cold spell? That's just weather and isn't evidence for anything.

Then there's the whole attempt to basically shout down any dissent and debate. That is not science. Appeals to "consensus" instead of to the data. Also not science. Claim that the debate is over. Not science. "Peer reviewed journals" where the "peers" are all AGW proponents and "review" consists of excluding anyone who disagrees with that holy writ. Not science.

You claim to be a scientist? Well, perhaps I trust that about as much as I trust "I am done with this thread", but if you are a scientist, you should know all this stuff already.

 

[bigus_D]

Those kind of "hedges" ("probably," "may have," etc.) are normal in actual science. Sweeping, absolute statements are the province of religion and political punditry.

The Russian source is not claiming that they altered the Russian data. What they are claiming is that they cherry picked the data--excluding 75% of the Russian data which did not fit their "model."

So if someone urinates in your cornflakes it's okay because most of the content of the bowl is the original corn flakes?

"A little bit of fraudulent content" is like being a little bit pregnant. Either they have scientific integrity or they do not. And the cited examples shows that they do not. Once that's established all that's left is haggling over price.

Justifying them because the remaining material (unlike the 62 MB that have been leaked) because it may not be fraudulent is like justifying a thief because of the money he didn't steal.

The only "fix" in that situation is to come clean and release all their data to independent verification, including verification by skeptics. Oh, wait a minute. They threw out their original data. Too late. There is no fix. They have committed scientific fraud and have dumped the one thing that, depending on what was in it, might have demonstrated that the fraud was an aberration and not "business as usual."

Had they been actual scientists they would have realized that keeping the data was important.


And the AGW folk are lying about how bad it is, selecting "worst cases" (the 25% of Russian data included) and excluding things that disagree with that worst case (the 75% not included).

Lies by omission are as much lies as lies by commission.

I'm glad we agree. While the issue of the data manipulation is terrible, it STILL doesn't change the fact that global warming is happening. FINALLY
CONSENSUS!

 

[dburkhead]

I'm glad we agree. While the issue of the data manipulation is terrible, it STILL doesn't change the fact that global warming is happening. FINALLY
CONSENSUS!

What next? Water is wet? Global studies with millions of dollars in grant money and political decisions draining billions to trillions out of the economy based on that?

Since we are "recovering" from the Little Ice Age, since both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period are little more than "blips" on the "recovery" since the last major glaciation, and since the sun is getting hotter over time, and since nobody, including AGW skeptics, really question any of these, and since I have made exactly those points in. this. thread. your "Finally" is hardly justified.

The man you are attacking. It is straw.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Alright you two , There's only one way to settle this , DANCEOFF!