Pages: 1

 

2010-01-19 08:18:41
13rin
Member
+977|6765
So if these guy are on target, NASA & NOAA are dirty too... We'll see how it unfolds.

Icecap
American Thinker

Jane Jamison wrote:

Climate-gate Redux

Climate-gate part I occurred in early December when a still-unknown person posted thousands of e-mails and documents on a scientific website.  The e-mails showed that scientists at the leading “global warming” research institute in the world, East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) had “changed” weather data to prove their climate-warming theories, and squelched dissenting opinions from skeptical scientists to maintain credibility for their fraud.

Climate-gate part II begins now: The scientists with Icecap.us website announced findings late last week that not only was the CRU involved in producing fraudulent weather data, but two United States agencies, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), have also been falsifying climate reports for years. NOAA, the report concludes, is actually “ground-zero” for the fraud of global warming, not the East Anglia Institute.

Climate researchers have discovered that government researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2009 as “THE SECOND WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.”

In a new report supported by SPPI, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina Smith and D’Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations and then ‘adjusting’ the data in ways that increase the apparent warming.

The results of Smith and D’Aleo’s findings were aired in a special on KUSI-TV hosted by founder of the Weather Channel and long-time meteorologist and climate “realist”, John Coleman. 

DAleo’s preliminary report is HERE. Segments of the KUSI-TV report are HERE.  SPPI’s website will print the final report soon.

Bottom line:  Just about everyone involved with the “global warming” movement was faking and lying about faking their reports.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2010-01-19 08:30:45
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7052|UK
"The e-mails showed that scientists at the leading “global warming” research institute in the world, East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) had “changed” weather data to prove their climate-warming theories, and squelched dissenting opinions from skeptical scientists to maintain credibility for their fraud."

Um no it didnt...

It showed that you can take 10 years worth of emails from people and take something they said at some point out of context.
2010-01-19 08:33:26
13rin
Member
+977|6765

Vilham wrote:

"The e-mails showed that scientists at the leading “global warming” research institute in the world, East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) had “changed” weather data to prove their climate-warming theories, and squelched dissenting opinions from skeptical scientists to maintain credibility for their fraud."

Um no it didnt...

It showed that you can take 10 years worth of emails from people and take something they said at some point out of context.
I dunno... Did you read the e-mails?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2010-01-19 08:34:06
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6907|London, England
Yeah, I'm becoming more skeptical about the whole thing too. Don't get me wrong, I really want us to stop polluting the atmosphere, relying on idiots in the Middle East/Russia/Big oil companies, becoming less wasteful/more efficient and generally taking care of the environment, saving money, energy security, all of that.

But the whole idea of the world's gonna be fucked etc and the fixation on specifically carbon in recent years, and all that carbon credit offsetting tax crap.. is pissing me off.

Also NASA getting in on the act - Moon landings were fake tbh

I saw this today, too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8467480.stm

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the chances of Himalayan glaciers "disappearing by 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high".
"The IPCC claim that glaciers will vanish by 2035 was not based on an iota of scientific evidence," the Hindustan Times newspaper quoted Mr Ramesh as saying.

"The IPCC has to do a lot of answering on how it reached the 2035 figure, which created such a scare."
He said there was no "conclusive scientific evidence" linking global warming to the melting of glaciers.

Academics have previously questioned the 2035 figure saying it was "wildly inaccurate".

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, said he believed the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

He said they "misread 2350 as 2035".
2010-01-19 08:37:05
jord
Member
+2,382|6964|The North, beyond the wall.

Mekstizzle wrote:

Yeah, I'm becoming more skeptical about the whole thing too. Don't get me wrong, I really want us to stop polluting the atmosphere, relying on idiots in the Middle East/Russia/Big oil companies, becoming less wasteful/more efficient and generally taking care of the environment, saving money, energy security, all of that.

But the whole idea of the world's gonna be fucked etc and the fixation on specifically carbon in recent years, and all that carbon credit offsetting tax crap.. is pissing me off.

Also NASA getting in on the act - Moon landings were fake tbh

I saw this today, too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8467480.stm

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the chances of Himalayan glaciers "disappearing by 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high".
"The IPCC claim that glaciers will vanish by 2035 was not based on an iota of scientific evidence," the Hindustan Times newspaper quoted Mr Ramesh as saying.

"The IPCC has to do a lot of answering on how it reached the 2035 figure, which created such a scare."
He said there was no "conclusive scientific evidence" linking global warming to the melting of glaciers.

Academics have previously questioned the 2035 figure saying it was "wildly inaccurate".

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, said he believed the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

He said they "misread 2350 as 2035".
It's the fact that we're in the financial state we're in and still giving out billions for poor countries to "go green" or whatever other stupid shit.

Infact I'm giving up on this Government and subsequently Camerons Government wasting tax money, it's an inevitability.
2010-01-19 08:43:07
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7052|UK

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

"The e-mails showed that scientists at the leading “global warming” research institute in the world, East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) had “changed” weather data to prove their climate-warming theories, and squelched dissenting opinions from skeptical scientists to maintain credibility for their fraud."

Um no it didnt...

It showed that you can take 10 years worth of emails from people and take something they said at some point out of context.
I dunno... Did you read the e-mails?
I read the ones that were widely publicized as damning evidence, personally i felt they didn't prove much of anything.
2010-01-19 08:57:45
13rin
Member
+977|6765

Vilham wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

"The e-mails showed that scientists at the leading “global warming” research institute in the world, East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) had “changed” weather data to prove their climate-warming theories, and squelched dissenting opinions from skeptical scientists to maintain credibility for their fraud."

Um no it didnt...

It showed that you can take 10 years worth of emails from people and take something they said at some point out of context.
I dunno... Did you read the e-mails?
I read the ones that were widely publicized as damning evidence, personally i felt they didn't prove much of anything.
Yea... I'd really like to see them.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2010-01-19 13:27:41
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6961|Canberra, AUS

Mekstizzle wrote:

Yeah, I'm becoming more skeptical about the whole thing too. Don't get me wrong, I really want us to stop polluting the atmosphere, relying on idiots in the Middle East/Russia/Big oil companies, becoming less wasteful/more efficient and generally taking care of the environment, saving money, energy security, all of that.

But the whole idea of the world's gonna be fucked etc and the fixation on specifically carbon in recent years, and all that carbon credit offsetting tax crap.. is pissing me off.

Also NASA getting in on the act - Moon landings were fake tbh

I saw this today, too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8467480.stm

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the chances of Himalayan glaciers "disappearing by 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high".
"The IPCC claim that glaciers will vanish by 2035 was not based on an iota of scientific evidence," the Hindustan Times newspaper quoted Mr Ramesh as saying.

"The IPCC has to do a lot of answering on how it reached the 2035 figure, which created such a scare."
He said there was no "conclusive scientific evidence" linking global warming to the melting of glaciers.

Academics have previously questioned the 2035 figure saying it was "wildly inaccurate".

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, said he believed the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

He said they "misread 2350 as 2035".
This made me slam my head against a wall. I didn't know about this prediction before but it is patent nonsense - the world's largest glaciers disappearing in thirty years? That's not climate change, that's throwing the world in a microwave.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-01-19 13:34:50
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6961|Canberra, AUS
I do, however, have extreme doubts as to the credibility of the source. One because it clearly has an agenda and is not the slightest bit interested in any form of journalistic integrity or objectivity - read the bullshit that is the last paragraph - and two because the report it takes was not pushed through mainstream scientific channels but rather aired for TV. That's not science, buddy, that's shitstirring.

Hell, even the extract shows dodginess:

Climate researchers have discovered that government researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD."

In a new report supported by SPPI, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina Smith and D'Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations and then ‘adjuting the data in ways that increase the apparent warming.
I notice they don't mention that both are diehard deniers. Frankly, I have to wonder about such people. They see the vast array of reports in favour of climate change, and either say they're bullshit, flawed, or usually just ignore them, but one dissenting opinion and STOP THE PRESSES WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-01-20 03:33:24
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6961|Canberra, AUS
Not to be an ass, but look a few posts up dude.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-01-21 05:32:54
13rin
Member
+977|6765
So now the glaciers aren't melting...

http://www.sphere.com/science/article/u … t/19324494
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2010-01-21 05:42:57
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7096|Nårvei

DBBrinson1 wrote:

So now the glaciers aren't melting...

http://www.sphere.com/science/article/u … t/19324494
Did you even read that article before you posted the link?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2010-01-21 05:52:26
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6907|London, England
Or the article I posted about that around two days ago as the fourth post in this very thread...
2010-01-21 14:02:54
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6961|Canberra, AUS

DBBrinson1 wrote:

So now the glaciers aren't melting...

http://www.sphere.com/science/article/u … t/19324494

Spark wrote:

Not to be an ass, but look a few posts up dude.
Plus... how did you get "glaciers aren't melting" out of that?

PS. I don't paticularly get how climate change deniers, everytime there is even the slightest of revisions or changes to base climate science, they call it a scandal and label it "....-gate" - do they not understand how science works?

Last edited by Spark (2010-01-21 14:03:59)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-01-21 15:30:46
Noobeater
Northern numpty
+194|6733|Boulder, CO
I also do not understand the climate change deniers, however I will say that the people who used the himalaya glacial prediction in an IPCC report didn't do anywhere near enough of a detailed check on the data, no data should be instantly accepted. Though at least people were trying to tell them that the prediction made no sense with just a 30 year time period.
2010-01-21 16:05:21
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6961|Canberra, AUS
Yes. As I said - the prediction was patent nonsense.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-01-21 20:16:40
13rin
Member
+977|6765

Spark wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

So now the glaciers aren't melting...

http://www.sphere.com/science/article/u … t/19324494

Spark wrote:

Not to be an ass, but look a few posts up dude.
Plus... how did you get "glaciers aren't melting" out of that?

PS. I don't paticularly get how climate change deniers, everytime there is even the slightest of revisions or changes to base climate science, they call it a scandal and label it "....-gate" - do they not understand how science works?
Oh my bad...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/14/a … e-rebound/

Hell, but when the data stops fitting the mold...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/26/n … ce-graphs/
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2010-01-21 20:32:02
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina
American Thinker is a suspect source, to put it mildly....

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard