Nice rumple that's exactly the mindset needed to believe AGW, Ignore the facts and talk about what if?
News from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) They are now claiming to have lost all the data that the theory of Global warming was built from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 936328.ece They LOST THE SCIENCE????????? Caught red handed more like it
Spoiler!
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building
Nice rumple that's exactly the mindset needed to believe AGW, Ignore the facts and talk about what if?
News from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) They are now claiming to have lost all the data that the theory of Global warming was built from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 936328.ece They LOST THE SCIENCE????????? Caught red handed more like it
Spoiler!
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building
Code: Select all
lol what? How is technology that is already being produced a what if? The facts are out there. The technology I am talking about is already out there. The benefits this technology is already affecting our lives. Again, keep ignoring what I am saying. Please, I find it funny that you're not responding to me.
....If it was possible to capitalize the ellipsis, I would do so. They only got rid of the raw temperatures to save space. Did you miss the "the temperatures after accounting for different measuring devices are still available" did you miss? At worst, this simply hurts students who are practicing taking into accounts those differences because now they do not have real numbers to play with and check. It's quite easy to see that you are simply a conspiracy junkie who gets his jollies from pretending everyone who is informed on something is actually covering up the biggest secret of all time. Certainly, it could not be that you are too uninformed to truly understand. But please, continue acting like the sky is falling and everyone who says it isn't is simply out to get you. After we all come to the realization that you will never know any better, we will eventually sit back and laugh at the sight.
Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 9544 Location: London, United Kingdom
Aetherius wrote:
....If it was possible to capitalize the ellipsis, I would do so. They only got rid of the raw temperatures to save space. Did you miss the "the temperatures after accounting for different measuring devices are still available" did you miss? At worst, this simply hurts students who are practicing taking into accounts those differences because now they do not have real numbers to play with and check. It's quite easy to see that you are simply a conspiracy junkie who gets his jollies from pretending everyone who is informed on something is actually covering up the biggest secret of all time. Certainly, it could not be that you are too uninformed to truly understand. But please, continue acting like the sky is falling and everyone who says it isn't is simply out to get you. After we all come to the realization that you will never know any better, we will eventually sit back and laugh at the sight.
i literally have nothing better to add haha
_________________
I am not online much if you wish to get hold of me send me a private message with your email/discord and ill catch up with you.
At worst, this simply hurts students who are practicing taking into accounts those differences because now they do not have real numbers to play with and check.
LOL who is Cherry Picking now???, Maybe you should have checked the full article "The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data. In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 936328.ece
It wasn't Students wanting to check the data, it was other scientists who kept getting refused, oh that smashes your *students* theory
It was also all thrown away in the 80's...long before any of this happened. The article you just linked even concedes that it was a far less pressing issue than it is today, and as such wouldn't have been worth the space. It's perfectly reasonable for an organization to come out after something like this happens and say, "hey, wish we could prove you guys wrong, but it seems Fred decided to throw that stuff out years ago." Also, are you trying to say that this entire "hoax" is 20+ years in the making? You sound more ridiculous with each passing minute. I must admit, your ability to ignore everything except the one thing you "think" you have some sort of counter-argument for is second to none.
It's perfectly reasonable for an organization to come out after something like this happens and say, "hey, wish we could prove you guys wrong, but it seems Fred decided to throw that stuff out years ago."
Thats Never Perfectly Reasonable in Sceince WTF?? Try and present a scientific theory without the evidence you will make a total dick of yourself.
You misunderstand me, silly man. It is reasonable that they would respond at this time with such news' it is quite unacceptable that the original data was thrown away. Besides, the main guy all of these attacks are aimed at wasn't the head of anything at the time it was thrown away. All of his work is based off of the temperatures that were adjusted for variations in regards to different measuring systems. So, as I have said before, unless you believe that this entire thing is a hoax 30 years in the making, it makes little difference. Granted, it is you so I am quite sure you are just imagining people who are no longer connected to any of this saying, "hey, you know what's a great idea guys? We'll fake all of these adjustments for different measuring systems for temperatures and then throw away the originals so someone who isn't any of us can cash in on it." Regardless of that, you can still compare UEA's findings with the findings of other centers that monitor temperature control, and you will see that they are all relatively close. Also, you are more than welcome to check out plenty of the other indicators of climate change. But, I am sure you believe all centers that have ever studied climate change are all in this thing together and that all of that is a lie as well.
Cool so if they release 100% of the findings into public domain for all climate scientists to work with , Its Temperatures were talking about not Government secrets, Recreate the temperature graphs for the time periods the *LOST DATA* covers with a proper peer review process than 99.99% of the criticism goes away + launch a investigation into the alleged IPPC's handling of data, If its all legit the science will prove it.
Joined: Nov 2008 Posts: 4441 Location: SHEEKA JOOM BA BOOM BAH!! BAM! BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!
clearly global warming is a serious issue. action is being taken to ensure the technology to reduce the pollution pumped into our enviroment. they have found a way to make money absorb and dispell such abominations. if a company pollutes too much, all they have to do is give the government money, with it they can make the future generations lives easier. they some how USE this money to reduce pollution. they havent explained or disclosed any of the science behind this. but by god it works.
LOL Cell Priceless, as insane as that sounds its exactly true, And its what happens when Environmentalists let Politicians and Corporations Hijack there Movement, They sell it back to you with a tax >_<
Skeptic or no Skeptic here are a couple of interesting Facts
Copenhagen VS ClimateGate Vs Global Warming on google
12,900,000 search results for ClimateGate
6,110,000 search results for Copenhagen
10,800,000 search results for global warming
Thats according to my searches done today o___________O
Considering ClimateGate (the hackings of east anglia) happend just over 1 week ago get more results, Well just a shame most international news stations don't think it warrents coverage How bizzare the numbers simply don't Add up
curiosity pushed me today to ask some of my friends what they think about this whole global warming hoax, showed them the links and sources, and all I got was dissapointment on how badly we got lied to. Most of the friends I've asked were in same highschool like me, so we all had to watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" during physics class in 9th grade, so yeah we all know what it's about. But putting in balace, hoax seems more reliable than the documentary itself, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put this alltogether
I fail to understand how so many people here refuse to think a little before screaming.
So i looked at that page and saw the 2 photo's of mt hood in oregon and saw the shocking loss of snow Man it must be heating up so bad there i thought id look at some graphs to see the devastation global warming is having in that part of the world
Spoiler!
Not only are the Temperatures following the same path since 1984 (when the original photo was taken) There is also slightly more snow in 2008 than there was in 1984, So please forgive me if i choose not to beleive a word on that site.
Heres something i found that nearly made me wet my pants omg it's was Hillarious
My 2 cents. Global warming is a lie. Though it is generally trumpeted the loudest by those that would deny that humanity could possibly have an impact on their environment. All they have to do is find one place it was cooler for some reason and they can shout where is your global warming now.
Truth is it is global climate change. It will take quite a while still before we boil the oceans away. It will start slowly at first. Ocean levels rise rain forests become deserts and deserts become rain forests etc. Ocean currents will change faster than many species will be able to adapt to. There will be much devastation and humanity will have a part in it. It will happen slowly and many will fight it for generations.
To understand how humans can effect their environment on the small scale one only has to look to china or many of the smaller countries in africa. Or turn of the century england for that matter. Soot darkening the skies. Chemicals leaching in to the water supply forming corrosive toxic brews. These are not fairy tails guys it is happening now. And if humanity as a whole keeps this up eventually the environment will be far different than it is now. Quite possibly unlivable.
As far as this goes zen the worst that happened is that "isolated" scientists fudged their data a bit( perhaps for funding or noteriety) or more likely were careless with their source data. However even if they used the source data's original papers as toilet paper and then tried to read the data through shit stains it would not invalidate all other data supporting global climate change in the world. And there is plenty. But I digress.
Call it what it is kids. Global warming is a lie but global climate change is very real. And humanity is a growing influence in it. Only those willfily ignorant could deny that man could impact his environment.
I agree that the climate is changing, but this is also part of Earth's natural cycle. Ofcourse, there's alot of pollution, but how will taxes and pumping money into government's pockets change this? All the "cleaning" technologies, it's all bs
ping though has mad a good point, people can't see the difference between climate change and global warming (which is just a TV thing to lie people with it.. sounds more dramatic lol)
and LOL @ the vid, "no ice at north pole", we should all be drowned by now.. and they look soo serious saying it
Here it is in case you don’t have an account there:
By JOHN TIERNEY Published: November 30, 2009 If you have not delved into the thousands of e-mail messages and files hacked from the computers of British climate scientists, let me give you the closest thing to an executive summary. It is taken from a file slugged HARRY_READ_ME, which is the log of a computer expert’s long struggle to make sense of a database of historical temperatures. Here is Harry’s summary of the situation:
Aarrggghhh!
That cry, in various spellings, is a motif throughout the log as Harry tries to fight off despair. “OH [EXPLETIVE] THIS!” he writes after struggling to reconcile readings from weather stations around the world. “It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity. ...”
Harry, whoever he may be, comes off as the most sympathetic figure in the pilfered computer annals of East Anglia University, the British keeper of global temperature records. While Harry’s log shows him worrying about the integrity of the database, the climate scientists are e-mailing one another with strategies for blocking outsiders’ legal requests to see their data.
While Harry is puzzling over temperatures — “I have that familiar Twilight Zone sensation” — the scientists are confidently making proclamations to journalists, jetting to conferences and plotting revenge against those who question the dangers of global warming. When a journal publishes a skeptic’s paper, the scientists e-mail one another to ignore it. They focus instead on retaliation against the journal and the editor, a project that is breezily added to the agenda of their next meeting: “Another thing to discuss in Nice!”
As the scientists denigrate their critics in the e-mail messages, they seem oblivious to one of the greatest dangers in the climate-change debate: smug groupthink. These researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause.
Consider, for instance, the phrase that has been turned into a music video by gleeful climate skeptics: “hide the decline,” used in an e-mail message by Phil Jones, the head of the university’s Climatic Research Unit. He was discussing the preparation of a graph for the cover of a 1999 report from the World Meteorological Organization showing that temperatures in the past several decades were the highest of the past millennium.
Most of the graph was based on analyses of tree rings and other “proxy” records like ice cores and lake sediments. These indirect measurements indicated that temperatures declined in the middle of the millennium and then rose in the first half of the 20th century, which jibes with other records. But the tree-ring analyses don’t reveal a sharp warming in the late 20th century— in fact, they show a decline in temperatures, contradicting what has been directly measured with thermometers.
Because they considered that recent decline to be spurious, Dr. Jones and his colleagues removed it from part of the graph and used direct thermometer readings instead. In a statement last week, Dr. Jones said there was nothing nefarious in what they had done, because the problems with the tree-ring data had been openly identified earlier and were known to experts.
But the graph adorned the cover of a report intended for policy makers and journalists. The nonexperts wouldn’t have realized that the scariest part of that graph — the recent temperatures soaring far above anything in the previous millennium — was based on a completely different measurement from the earlier portion. It looked like one smooth, continuous line leading straight upward to certain doom.
The story behind that graph certainly didn’t show that global warming was a hoax or a fraud, as some skeptics proclaimed, but it did illustrate another of their arguments: that the evidence for global warming is not as unequivocal as many scientists claim. (Go to nytimes.com/tierneylab for details.)
In fact, one skeptic raised this very issue about tree-ring data in a comment posted in 2004 on RealClimate, the blog operated by climate scientists. The comment, which questioned the propriety of “grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record,” immediately drew a sharp retort on the blog from Michael Mann, an expert at Penn State University:
“No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, ‘grafted the thermometer record onto’ any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation Web sites) appearing in this forum.”
Dr. Mann now tells me that he was unaware, when he wrote the response, that such grafting had in fact been done in the earlier cover chart, and I take him at his word. But I don’t see why the question was dismissed so readily, with the implication that only a tool of the fossil-fuel industry would raise it.
Contempt for critics is evident over and over again in the hacked e-mail messages, as if the scientists were a priesthood protecting the temple from barbarians. Yes, some of the skeptics have political agendas, but so do some of the scientists. Sure, the skeptics can be cranks and pests, but they have identified genuine problems in the historical reconstructions of climate, as in the debate they inspired about the “hockey stick” graph of temperatures over the past millennium.
It is not unreasonable to give outsiders a look at the historical readings and the adjustments made by experts like Harry. How exactly were the readings converted into what the English scientists describe as “quality controlled and homogenised” data?
Trying to prevent skeptics from seeing the raw data was always a questionable strategy, scientifically. Now it looks like dubious public relations, too.
In response to the furor over the climate e-mail messages, there will be more attention than ever paid to those British temperature records, and any inconsistencies or gaps will seem more suspicious simply because the researchers were so determined not to reveal them. Skeptical bloggers are already dissecting Harry’s work. As they relentlessly pore over other data, the British scientists will feel Harry’s pain:
I agree that the climate is changing, but this is also part of Earth's natural cycle. Ofcourse, there's alot of pollution, but how will taxes and pumping money into government's pockets change this? All the "cleaning" technologies, it's all bs
First I would rather money go towards that than funding wars. Second many of the things are so big etc and so many people would resist simply because it would impact their bottom line they would say screw the environment and everyone around them they want the money. Remember the govt used to regulate financial markets. But markets needing financial regulation was just as much a myth as humans impacting global climate change. We deregulated and it has been all good since right? Some things only the govt and threats of punishment can accomplish.
DluR wrote:
ping though has mad a good point, people can't see the difference between climate change and global warming (which is just a TV thing to lie people with it.. sounds more dramatic lol)
Yes but humans are still impacting it in a negative manner. It is all a wordsmithing deal. Say estate tax and most people would not care about it as they are not ritch enough to have an estate. Say death tax and all of a sudden they care because they will die. Say that it is global warming and people will say it is bunk because some areas are getting cooler. Say that it is global climate change and people will start to take it seriously. Those that sensationalise it and call it global warming are doing almost as much damage as those that deny that humans impact their environment. It is the responsibility of us as individuals and the governments that represent us to keep those that would make a fast buck off the environment from doing like they did to our economy here.
To understand how humans can effect their environment on the small scale one only has to look to china or many of the smaller countries in africa. Or turn of the century england for that matter. Soot darkening the skies. Chemicals leaching in to the water supply forming corrosive toxic brews. These are not fairy tails guys it is happening now. And if humanity as a whole keeps this up eventually the environment will be far different than it is now. Quite possibly unlivable.
I really tried stressing early in this thread that im not talking about pollution or denying pollution has a negative effect on the environment, My concerns about the phony global warming is it leads people away from those real issues and into a rabbit hole of misinformation, Reducing carbon emissions worldwide wont fix this, China and india are boycotting the carbon emissions in fear it will destroy there industries so don't believe there is a global handshake on this, Australia also recently did not pass there ETS,
Rumple bought up a really good point earlier in the thread about the technologies we could harness to at least clean up alot of pollution or even better focus on creating technologies that will do this, Instead hundreds of millions of $$$ are being spent on developing a way to tax everyone for c02, when that money could go towards preventative technologies? Thats really the direction i would love to see this moove in,
Do you think glaciers in the arctic are supposed to give a shit about summer and winter? The fact that they are disappearing (not coming back) from the general change in climate should throw up some red flags. The fact that ice sheets are receding at all should throw up some red flags. Get your head out of your ass.
Just because it snows in the winter doesn't mean we're fine.
Did your fear mongering global warming sites conveniently forget to inform you of this?
Spoiler!
The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.
A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/gore-cancels-personal-appearance-copenhagen/ Former Vice President Al Gore on Thursday abruptly canceled a Dec. 16 personal appearance that was to be staged during the United Nations' Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which begins next week.
As described in The Washington Times' Inside the Beltway column Tuesday, the multimedia public event to promote Mr. Gore's new book, "Our Choice," included $1,209 VIP tickets that granted the holder a photo opportunity with Mr. Gore and a "light snack."
Berlingkse Media, a Danish group coordinating ticket sales and publicity for the event, said that "great annoyance" was a factor in the cancellation, along with unforeseen changes in Mr. Gore's program for the climate summit. The decision affected 3,000 ticket holders.
He was going to be Paid $3 million to speak there and promote his new book what on earth could have made him change his mind....ClimateGate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
How bizzare the numbers simply don't Add up 
