Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by ptif219, Jan 29, 2012.

  1. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Come on ptif. Take some responsibility for your eduction. Learn instead of (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about things you do not know nor understand.

    So you are claiming that all the scientists at CRU, the Met office, the IPCC, NASA, GISS, NSIDC, NCAR, BOM, PIK, NOAA and more are all hiding and manipulating data. IMO, such a claim belongs in the conspiracy section of this forum.

    Bye, bye. I do not currently have a lot of patience for conspiracy nuts. I will keep reading you posts and watch you continue to make a fool of yourself.

    >>>lurker mode
     
  2. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes there is there is e-mails that say to destroy evidence
     
  3. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The proof is they will not release information even when the FOI is used.

    What are they hiding?
     
  4. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    LOLOLOL.....still holding on like grim death to your idiotic denier cult myths even after they have been debunked and you've been shown the evidence many times. Very troll-like behavior....and very predictable in your case.

     
  5. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't debunk the fact they ignored FOI for 2 years. Scientists would want the public to know. This proves this is not science but a political agenda and it is full of corruption and lies.

    You mean the university investigated itself.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/12/climate-change-climategate-nature-global-warming

     
  6. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's totally crazy, dude. You have been lied to and now you have no idea what actually happened. You're just parroting idiotic denier cult propaganda and lies.

    The CRU was being deliberately inundated with very large numbers of boilerplate FOI demands regarding the raw temperature data the CRU used to compute global-average temperatures in a blatant attempt to waste their time with irrelevancies and create legal problems. The CRU couldn't legally release all of that data until it obtained permission from the owners, namely the various national meteorological services that collected the data and legally 'owned' it. Over the last few years, the CRU worked hard to secure permission to release all of that raw data and last summer they were finally legally able to release all of the raw data, except for a tiny amount from Poland which is still refusing permission. So what did all of you deniers who complained so bitterly about the "hidden data" do when it was released? Did you immediately rush to analyze the data yourselves to see if the reported temperature trends were accurate? LOLOLOLOL. Well, of course not. If the deniers who were demanding the CRU temperature data (and screaming "climategate" when they couldn't get it as soon as they wanted it) weren't so lazy and incompetent, they could have verified that the CRU global-temperature results were completely valid immediately after the CRU released all that raw data. Verifying the validity of the CRU results (and the NASA/NOAA results as well) from the raw data released by the CRU last summer is something that a competent analyst could have done the very same day that the CRU released the data. But here we are, about six months after the big CRU data release, and the deniers who had been demanding that data for the previous two years have produced absolutely nothing except more mindless denial of reality.






    No, I don't mean that. I guess that's another of your wacko denier cult myths. It's really a shame you've been so badly bamboozled and duped by those with a financial interest in selling fossil fuels.

    Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy
    Union of Concerned Scientists
    (excerpts)

    The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

    Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing
    Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.
    * A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
    * Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia "supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
    * A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
    * The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
    * The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded: "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

    Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
    * The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
    * Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
    * Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
    * An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
     
  7. gmb92

    gmb92 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,799
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Correction: There are a couple of emails from Phil Jones that asks colleagues to delete some emails. There's no indication that the emails in question were deleted, and they were in fact reproduced.

    Do you ever write a post that is accurate?
     
  8. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have been lied to and you defend the fact they are hiding information. That is not science that is politics.

    I am still waiting for someone to explain what they are hiding.

    Why do they refuse to be transparent and make their findings public.

    This stinks of corruption and data manipulation

    After 2 years I am sure they were able to destroy document and fudge the numbers so it promotes GW
     
  9. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no proof because scientists continue to hide data. The secrecy stinks of corruption and data manipulation. Once again it was East Anglia investigating itself more lies and corruption.

    http://climategate.tv/tag/phil-jones/

     
  10. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How is it that "peers" who peer-review climate stuff are all committed Warmers?
     
  11. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because 97% of climate researchers are "warmers". I wonder why that is?
    You, or anyone else, of course, are welcome to read any paper and show us the errors in any paper.
     
  12. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Well there is the problem right there. What if they are NOT hiding anything? Then you will be waiting for the rest of your life
     
  13. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female

    As Mannie said - go for it find a paper and find the flaws in the methodology application of statistics and present it. You might even make yourself a lot of money like Steve Mcintyre

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre
     
  14. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To summarize: The only thing denialists can present are fantasies of a global leftist conspiracy. Only a handful of barking right-wing kooks understand the real truth.

    Since I love this animated graph, let's post it again. It illustrates the stupidity and dishonesty of the denialist "but it's really cooling!" big lie.

    (You may need to refresh the browser page to get the animation going.)



    [​IMG]
     
  15. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Show proof of that
     
  16. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If they are not hiding anything why is their research not made public? If they are not hiding anything why do they fight FOI for 2 years?
     
  17. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How about September temps used to show hottest October. How about the lies about the Himalayas.
     
  18. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How about you come up with a fact occasionally?
     
  19. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
  20. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wild generalisations are not facts.
     
  21. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And both do not affect temperature trend of the last 150 years.

    How about Watts claiming IPCC does not include water vapor in their studies?
    How about an article on Wattsup that claims Hansen predicted 2.5C increase in 25 years?
    How about CO2Science moving the MWP around to suit their agenda?
    How about Monckton claiming "No ocean heat buildup for 50 years"?
    How about Inhofe's claim that 650 scientists dissent over GW?
    How about Bastardi's claim that 1934 was globally warmer than today?
    How about Christy's claim that the hot spot is a fingerprint of AGW?

    Want more?
     
  22. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    whose generalizations are you talking about? Show the generalization.
     
  23. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But it does show how the GW community is corrupt and lies and has no credibility or integrity.
     
  24. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then, because the deniers are lying, you must accept that the deniers are corrupt and have "no credibility or integrity."
     
  25. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!

    Sorry mate but if you are talking of the data - that has been addressed and is available - they could not release it because they did not "own" it

    Now if your are talking about the research that came from the data - that is available and always HAS been
     

Share This Page