• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Falsified Data, Lies, & Anthropogenic Global Warming

"Several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters this week. "

Even if the first statement is taken as TRUTH (in all caps like that), many of the skeptics are arguing about the CAUSE. Saying there IS change is not the same as saying WE are the "main cause" of that change.
 
Drizzt80 said:
Unfortunately, your lack of understanding of SCIENCE is showing. Disproving a theory does NOT mean you have to prove the opposite. I've already shared a reasonably accurate description of just one possible reason why temperatures have "increased". You can go back and find it.

Your lack of understanding of science is still showing. You believe in religion. You prove science. Nothing has been proven.

Forcing me to expend extra money out of my pocket for a "maybe" is as bad as any religion asking me to give money so I can be "saved". I'll buy "better" gas if it saves me money, but it doesn't, I've tried. I drive a flexfuel vehicle. E85 has horrendous gas mileage so I just have to buy more. It's worse actually. I'll give money if it's used to help somebody, but don't tell me I'll be "saved" because I did it.

D80
Click to expand...

Has the theory been disproven? <- Genuine question

Re: Belief
The word belief is valid in this case because Climate Change is as complex an idea as evolution. Besides, how do you normally express something that you've come to believe other than to say "I believe it"?

What does your last sentiment have to do with Climate Change being real or not and Climate Change being influenced by mankind or not?
 
Oh pish posh.

Like I said in an earlier post, NASA has an inhouse program for rejiggereing and massaging the data,.....so making the numbers fit is no problem.
Incidentally, it is NASA's (periodically rejiggered, rewritten, and massaged) research that is the cornerstone of US policy on climate change.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

NASA's GISS was forced to update its data in 2007 after questions were raised by Steve McIntyre, who runs ClimateAudit.com.
GISS had initially listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931. After Mr. McIntyre's questions GISS rejiggered the list and 1934 was warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. But since then, the list has been rewritten again so it now runs 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921, 1999.
Click to expand...
 
vetusvates said:
Oh pish posh.
Click to expand...
Exactly. You can take this for whatever you feel, but I have a very close friend who's has a doctorate and this is his field. He shared with me that he sat in on an MIT presentation on their global climate models. They actually shared that it took them several (many several) revisions to their climate models in order to get the """"right"""" answer that showed that global warming was caused by humans and occurring at an accelerated pace. And they were trying to prove that, but their original model(s) did not support their fallacy. Instead of figure out why that was the case, hey, let's just change the data to make it """true""". :rolleyes:

D80
 
vetusvates said:
Forbes Magazine : federal government proclaimed coming ice age in 1974.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html

My favorite tidbit :
Click to expand...

This is an interesting read.

Global warming isn't a new concept by any means. According to the research done in the above paper, it predates the global cooling claims. Besides, a minority of scientists hypothesizing about a coming ice age based on a period of slowly falling average temperatures doesn't disprove the science of climate change - it just demonstrates that science isn't an exact science, so to speak.

And the fact that worldwide glaciers are still retreating at an accelerating rate doesn't really fit with the claims in this thread that the temperature is stable. The ice caps are melting. This isn't debated - it is recorded data. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased significantly. Again, recorded data. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Not debated.

So we have increased levels of a gas proven to act as a heat insulator, and retreating glaciers around the world. These are not debated facts. You tell me what this means, then, if the obvious isn't good enough.
 
Brent, and whoever else, I was not saying "pish posh" about anyone's serious opinions.

I was referring simply to the silly idea that numbers could not be made to fit.
All in the spirit of fun.
Just for the record.

The very idea of...rejiggering and massaging data...just makes me feel all tingly inside. In a naughty good way. :roflmao:


Like when Shelley Winters said to Johnny Carson (in dead seriousness, pardon the pun) that all the water was in Canada...they were holding it/hogging it up there.
 
Well, interesting. Since all this started there's been a marked shift in the way commentators and pundits are covering climate change in the UK, and I suspect beyond. Now, we have to adopt a Pascal's Wager approach, so we have comments like:

"Given a choice we have to err on the side of caution", and, this morning, "We must see these measures as a form of insurance policy".

The usual BS positivity ("The science is settled") seems to be abating...
 
By the way Vetusvates, excellent article on 1974. It's good to be reminded from time to time just how imprecise this science is. I think if I could find an accurate 5-day weather forecast it would do for now...
 
Interesting Reading!!

http://www.sphere.com/world/article...limate-change-summit-in-copenhagen/19281919

Fudging numbers again, I see?!?! o_O

(Dec. 15) -- It is an inconvenient time for Al Gore to be fudging numbers on global climate change.

With the specter of the "Climategate" e-mails hanging ominously over the Copenhagen climate change summit, the former vice president told a crowd there on Monday that one scientist had predicted the polar ice cap would have no summer ice in five to seven years.

"These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years," Gore told the audience.

But the scientist Gore quoted, Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., told the Times of London that he never said such a thing.
Click to expand...

Wayne
 
Well, our illustrious Prime minister, Gordon Brown has been on the TV this morning, and the truth is starting to slip out: His first voiced concern was this:

The PM said a deal could create up to 500,000 jobs in the UK's "low carbon" industries, while helping the developing world combat climate change.

I've said all along this is about the economy, and many recent reports have taken the "OK, even if there is doubt, it's better to be on the safe side and realise that the economy is snookered if this doesn't go ahead".

Read the whole Gordon Brown thing here, at BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8415424.stm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top