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

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

  1. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The links do not open that is not my fault. Instead show the actual data. I have shown proof warming has not been what some claim.

    You also do not answer the fact that this is not science when they hide data and will not release it.

    This data should be public knowledge not hidden. That tells me they are manipulating data and this is more a political agenda and has little to do with science.
     
  2. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course it is your "fault". You do not know how to deal with the file format with which the data is presented. The files are not hidden. Scientists have no responsibility to teach you how to open or download files. Scientists have no responsibility to teach you how to use the data. Scientists have no responsibility to teach you how to program. The data is there for you to use if you know how. If you do not, it is your responsibility to go educate yourself.

    Do conservatives not believe in personal responsibility? Do you want the government to hold your hand and teach you how to use the computer?
     
  3. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You link does not work on my mac.

    There are articles where GW organizations refuse to release data and have to be taken to court. That shows this is not science for scientists would release data

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10666256

    http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2011/09/cia_climate.html
     
  4. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not my, nor any scientist's problem. Do you believe in personal responsibility? Learn to use your Mac. Neither I, nor the government, will teach you.
    From your link:"The lobby of climate sceptics and Act Party have long criticised Niwa over its temperature data, which Niwa says is mainstream science and not controversial, and the raw data publicly available."
    "Last week, the CIA categorically denied (pdf) a request under the Freedom of Information Act for a copy of any Center studies or reports concerning the impacts of global warming."
    CIA, not scientists, denied info request. Contact the CIA and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) to them.

    Unlike atmospheric CO2 content and temperature, your credibility continues to decline.
     
  5. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Learn to post a link that works or cut and paste.

    The truth is the GW community only releases what they can back up. Anything that is against GW is not released. Scientist have become political pawns of the UN and governments.

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

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Freedom-of-Information-FOI-requests-climate-scientists.htm

    http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/11/22/ipcc-propaganda-best-‘science’-wwf’s-coke-money-can-buy


    Data manipulation refusing to release data. This is not science it is corruption and politics
     
  6. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It is really a shame that AGW denier cultists are so ignorant, gullible and retarded.

    Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012
    29 01 2012
    (government publication - free to reproduce - not under copyright)

    Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.

    This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

    Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.

    For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:

    A spokesman for the Met Office said:

    “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.

    “The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.

    “However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”​

    [​IMG]
    Global average temperatures from 1850 to 2011
    from the three individual global temperature datasets
    (Met Office/UEA HadCRUT3, NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC)

    [​IMG]

    Furthermore despite criticism of a paper published by the Met Office he chose not to ask us to respond to his misconceptions. The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun.

    It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.
     
  7. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Imagine that the GW propagandists claiming their own figures are wrong. nice try but i do not believe them the have a history of corruption.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/28/the-met-office-and-the-bbc-caught-cold/
     
  8. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  9. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    In your denier cult myths maybe but in the real world....


    Climategate's raw data released to the public
    July 31, 2011
    (excerpts)

    In 2009 the Climate Research Centre (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK was accused of withholding and manipulating data. But while it was later cleared of the charges, the accusations still put a serious dent in the credibility of not just climate researchers, but researchers in general. For those of you wondering who was wrong and who was right in this so-called climategate now is your chance, since the CRU has released the raw data that was at the center of it all.

    The temperature records comprise data that go back 150 years from 5113 weather stations. It would have been 5132 stations were it not for Poland refusing to allow their records to be made public. CRU's pro-vice-chancellor for research, Trevor Davies gives as the most important reason for releasing the data, dispelling the myths that they are being secretive and the data have been inappropriately manipulated. And maybe most importantly to show that there is indeed evidence that global temperature is increasing.


    (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
     
  10. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you're acting very confused and clueless again.....

    The CRU definitely was not "claiming their own figures are wrong"

    They are saying that the idiotic denier cult article you quoted was full of errors (and BS) and that it totally misinterpreted their data and findings.

    The source for the supposed 'data' in your article has refuted the article. Are you too lost in your delusions to get that?
     
  11. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cleared? They cleared themselves. The investigation was a farce. Nice try but that is not credible. As always the GW propagandists think their voice is the only correct voice and all should accept their deceptions and lies

    You mean this CRU Notice it took a court order to get them to release what should be scientific public information. What are they hiding?

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/04/25/cru-refuses-foi-request-for-yamal-climategate-chronology/


    http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/23/uk-met-offices-refuses-to-disclose-station-data-once-again/


    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/complicit-in-climategate-doe-under-fire/
     
  12. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wish ptif wouldn't ruin every thread with his nonsense.
     
  13. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean the nonsense that show the corruption of the left.
     
  14. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have posted several links. If your computer does not have the program necessary to open the links, I recommend that you start to educate yourself and dl files that will open the files you wish to look at. You can start by learning about programs that unzip compressed files and then learn about files extensions used for datafiles. That is all the time I will spend to teach you waht you need to learn
     
  15. gmb92

    gmb92 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,799
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From your second link:

    This flatly contradicts your assertions, as does:

    So a scant few scientists reacted in an overly-defensive way to those correctly perceived to be acting in bad faith, and suddenly it's the "final nail in the coffin...". Talk about desperation from deniers.
     
  16. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You just know you are going to be denied. His faith is impervious to fact or logic.
     
  17. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Does not matter. I have shown they are corrupt. For 2 years they refused to release data. how do we know the data is correct. What are they hiding.

    The GW community is secretive and corrupt. They no longer have any integrity or credibility.
     
  18. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Funny how you ignore their corruption and breaking the law by denying the request for 2 years.

    What they said is they have no proof the information is corrupt that does not mean that the CRU did not pull a fast one.

    The fact they did this corruption and the fact they are trying to hide information tells me they have no credibility or integrity and I would not trust anything they claim or release
     
  19. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact is the CRU broke the law and tried to hide data. That is data manipulation and corruption and shows the GW community does not want to let the public know the facts.

    This is not science this is politics with all the corruption of politics.
     
  20. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Those aren't "facts", those are the delusional lies and myths of the anti-science AGW denial cult that was created by the fossil fuel industry propagandists and that you have apparently embraced without actually investigating the source of your misinformation.

    The CRU did not "hide" any data, they did not in any way fraudulently "manipulate" the data, the data in question has always been available from a number of sources, your myths are crazy.
     
  21. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Refusing to release data for 2 years when presented with FOI is not lies or myths it is facts of corruption and data manipulation. No matter how much they show they are corrupt and more about politics than science the more you justify their disgusting behavior.

    Refusing to release information is not science that is politics.


    What are they hiding?
     
  22. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm actually convinced ptif is a troll...Or just frighteningly stupid.
     
  23. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it is the GW supporters that are to stupid to see the corruption and data manipulation by the CRU and the met office and the IPCC and NASA and GISS

    Even though I have proven they refuse to release information you try to justify their illegal actions.

    Again what are they hiding?
     
  24. gmb92

    gmb92 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,799
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you have thousands of stolen personal emails from many scientists dating back over 10 years, there's no evidence of any "corrupt information" or academic misconduct. Yet your crowd still carries on like there's some sort of massive conspiracy. Proof positive that you can never please conspiracy nuts.
     
  25. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    a troll would've lost interest and moved on long ago...
     

Share This Page