• 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

My dad spent 20 years in the air force as a meteorologist (Weather Man) and has ALWAYS said that this "global warming" was stupid. He states and is right...that we have only been recording weather for a few hundred years...how can we possibly say what swing the earths climate is headed for. He used to get so heated up on the topic. LOL! I will have to forward these articles to him. He will be delighted!
 
The issue of global warming/climate change has always irked me. I suppose I am the equivalent of an "agnostic" on the issue. However, I hate how it is handled in the media (i.e. oh it's cold today...global warming =false...or oh it is hot today, must be global warming. wtf? no.). And I hate how it has essentially become politicized and partisan.

It seems to me that the more 'liberal' radio/tv personalities come across at times as being out of touch with reality on the issue....'conservative' personalities come across as believing that because there is 'no global warming' it gives us free rain to pollute to our hearts content. Both sides are messed up if you ask me.
 
There's no debate that global warming isn't new....our earth has been able to withstand higher temperatures in the past (irr well millions of years ago). It's the SPEED at which its occuring that is alarming.....a few degrees in under 100 years is a shock, considering the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum was roughly the same change....over 20,000 years!! And that natural global warming event caused an entire turnover in fauna!!
 
This hack happened awhile ago and basically they were mostly personal emails that were made public. The best part, is when they used "Public outrage towards Global Warming" as a defense to get the Greenpeace people that targeted a coal facility, acquitted. They are calling for the hackers to be prosecuted for releasing this info, and the Global Warming critics are saying that if it worked for them, that the hackers should be acquitted with the same defense, Doh...
 
They sound about as responsible as the "scientists" who put out the paper showing how Burmese pythons will blanket 1/3 of the US if we don't pass more legislation, and BTW, give a few million to those scientists to study the problem!

It is a shame that these ethical problems taint ALL of science. I USED to hold scientists in high esteem, and thought that MOST of them had chosen scientific careers to find TRUTH, not to justify some bias, and to find proof of only what they want to find.

I am sure that there are still many ethical scientists in the world. But because of the actions and agenda justifications that I am aware of, I now am much more wary of believing ANY of them. It is up to the responsible scientists to police their own ranks if they want to save the credibility of their profession. If they keep this up, I will place them right up there on the "pedestal" with lawyers and politicians!
 
kathylove said:
They sound about as responsible as the "scientists" who put out the paper showing how Burmese pythons will blanket 1/3 of the US if we don't pass more legislation, and BTW, give a few million to those scientists to study the problem!

It is a shame that these ethical problems taint ALL of science. I USED to hold scientists in high esteem, and thought that MOST of them had chosen scientific careers to find TRUTH, not to justify some bias, and to find proof of only what they want to find.

I am sure that there are still many ethical scientists in the world. But because of the actions and agenda justifications that I am aware of, I now am much more wary of believing ANY of them. It is up to the responsible scientists to police their own ranks if they want to save the credibility of their profession. If they keep this up, I will place them right up there on the "pedestal" with lawyers and politicians!
Click to expand...

That's the other problem, as the hacked emails stated, when approached by other scientists asking for the data to run their own tests, "The data was lost in a server switch"... That's when the critics became vocal, because they couldn't duplicate it on their own, and weren't able to check this groups work...
 
Interesting you think a bunch of out of context e-mails from a single university are an indictment of the all the climate scientists in the world who agree with anthropogenic global warming.

I wonder what people would think of us if they got a hold of a bunch of e-mails we'd written and quoted sections of them out of context to people who know nothing of reptiles.
 
I would not use those emails to say there is, or is not, global warming.

But I WOULD use those emails (assuming they are validated to be true) as an indictment on the integrity of those who want to conspire to "dress up" the facts, "get rid of" those who do not agree, or otherwise find ways to get around the accepted scientific methods of finding out the truth. Their lack of ethics doesn't prove their agenda / conclusion is wrong, it just casts a lot of doubt on it.

However, if more info comes out to totally explain why they innocently did, or suggested doing, all of those things, or proving the whole thing a hoax, then I am open to changing my mind.
 
RealClimate.org responds to the hacked e-mails.

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Click to expand...

The following quote, I think, is pretty interesting for one reason:
The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.
Click to expand...

And that is, that people who are denying that mankind is affecting global climate are latching onto this as if this proves all the science from the last 50 years was fabricated. Which is absolutely ridiculous.

BobbyHill said:
Ha! I -knew- it! Thanks!
Click to expand...

Because whoever Bobby Hill is, he's smarter than the vast majority of people who research climate for a living and saw through the grand hoax from the beginning.

Or Rush Limbaugh, and what he's saying to the Conservative conciousness as a result of this hack:

Rush Limbaugh said:
Liberalism is a lie. All of liberalism is a lie. The media are liberals and they promulgate lies. We know that the man-made global warming hoax is now...a hoax. E-mails from members of the Climate Research Unit responsible for the UN's climate panel prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that data was rigged, made up and ignored all to advance a political agenda. Liberalism is a lie and people who are liberals have to lie about what liberalism is in order for it to have any chance at all at the ballot box or in any other democratic situation.
Click to expand...

So a few out of context e-mails illegally hacked from a single university prove all liberalism is a lie now? Does he sound desperate or is it just me? Do global warming deniers sound desperate or is it just me?
 
Look, this is my thread. Leave Son-of-Satan (cough)Rush Limbaugh(cough) out of my thread.

J/K,....I suppose I can look the other way (or drive spikes through my eyes), just make sure you are quoting him to make a point. Which I cannot, in all honesty, find it in my understanding to think S-o-S could be used to make any point......except that one can be certifiably crazazy and still have a radio show/broadcast.
 
vetusvates said:
Look, this is my thread. Leave Son-of-Satan (cough)Rush Limbaugh(cough) out of my thread.

J/K,....I suppose I can look the other way (or drive spikes through my eyes), just make sure you are quoting him to make a point.
Click to expand...

I am, actually. :) Limbaugh speaks to a lot of people and neo-cons like him have a lot invested in ignoring global warming. So he's one of the most visible people to jumping into this controversy whole-hog (Yes, I said whole-hog). He makes a great example.

Which is not to say all skeptics regarding global warming are neo-cons. I just think the most angry ones are. :)
 
Nova_C said:
I am, actually. :) Limbaugh speaks to a lot of people and neo-cons like him have a lot invested in ignoring global warming. So he's one of the most visible people to jumping into this controversy whole-hog (Yes, I said whole-hog). He makes a great example.

Which is not to say all skeptics regarding global warming are neo-cons. I just think the most angry ones are. :)
Click to expand...
But there just as many that have just as much or MORE invested in making global warming as scary as humanly possible! cough ... Al Gore ... cough :shrugs::shrugs::shrugs:
 
Do you use a stick on thermometer for your reptile cages or an indoor/outdoor digital thermometer, or something in between? Why not the stick on thermometer?

A local meteorologist working for the National Weather Service explained the temperature "increase" to me as possibly occurring just from the increased accuracy in our measuring equipment.

Just from a technological standpoint, thermometers from 100 years ago would have been similar to a stick on, today's to a digital indoor/outdoor. A 1 degree increase in a hundred years blamed on me driving my car when a volcano spews more climate affecting garbage into the atmosphere in a 24 hour period? Okay. And some of you even debate against religion or the bible!

Wrap your head around that before trying to dictate expensive, highly questionable global policy.
D80
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top