Demenocal there at the end looks like an assessory to the crime lying for the warmists. Sounds like he's under duress or something. Science is not consensus and consensus is not science. And the supposed consensus is starting to wane. Trenberth even admits not being able to account for "the current lack of warrming". Phil Jones: "Kevin and I will keep them out....even if we have to redefine what peer review literature is". Yeah, that's what I call honest science. Face it, ur GW scam is over.
again , you mistake the USA for the whole world, your Gore is a nobody here, He is a politician...
and not a scientist.
You are the one with a religious believe here. you are the one that wants to use the data that is known to be wrong, merely because it confirms your religions of AGW denial.
you are not educated nor intelligent enough to get the matter behind the quotes.
and you are willfully staying ignorant on the matter.
@mikefastener little liar. no data was hidden, only wrong data was excluded because it was wrong.
i know your religion trusts more in tree ring than in thermometers, but i am sorry, the rest of the world does prefer thermometers and not tree rings.
you have no evidence at all, because what you have is something you don't understand.
would you have looked inot the matter yourself, you would realize how laughable your hide the decline nonsense is.
you do not even understand why the tree ring data is know to be wrong. all other methods show something different, including thermometers, but you are indeed dumb enough to rather take the wrong data and make your case.
"Sorry, my silly friend, this is getting tiring as I easily out-debate you in every post and you get angry."
funny enough it is you that has lost every single point in the debate, you were not able to backup any of your claims, you merely came back with the same question over and over again, and everytime i have answered the,.
@mikefastener again, the religious accusation is just laughable, the only one that ever brought up something religious, was you, you brought up god lol. So even if AGW was a religion and not a science, it would be very hypocritical of you to use that against me :)
Data that was wrong was excluded. Do you want wrong data being shown to you?
yes i think that is what you want, you want data that confirms your believe, not accurate data.
@Aanthanur Sorry, my silly friend, this is getting tiring as I easily out-debate you in every post and you get angry.
So, you won't answer on critical issues because they disturb your religious beliefs (CRU scandal, Glaciergate, Climategate, UNgate). Oh well--you have told us so many times, that it is okay to hide something if it disagrees with your religion. Are you hiding anything in these posts? Just wondering.... (You may wish to run away at this point as most GWW do!)
@Aanthanur I'm sorry, why was the MEW period not included? (You told me yourself that, "further evidence is needed for this period".) Is that because the admitted existence of such a period destroys your religion?
Wow--I am a good at debating! (Or, you are not very good!)
@mikefastener aah finally you have a new point, gratz.
The document in question actually explains it. but i will explain in simpler words for you.
the MWP was a pretty regional event. it was not over the whole northern hemisphere. and when you take the data from all of the Northern hemisphere the MWP is pretty much gone, because other regions in the northern hemisphere were much colder. So actually the MWP was included.
the only complicated word i had to use was hemisphere, just google it.
@Aanthanur My poor friend, I raised this before (check your outgoing e-mails) and you will see that the GWW (Global Warming Wingnuts) said that, according to you, "further research in this area is needed".
Now you tell me in this post that the science is finished regarding the MWP!
Wow--you are being destroyed by my debating skills! (No wonder you are getting angry!)
I (like Galileo) had similar problems with your religion. A fixated point-of-view that there was no other way and that we should worship around the maypole of the silly Global Warming Wingnuts.
Remember: "Those that ignore history, are doomed to repeat it!"
@mikefastener there are many data sets. one sets of data differs significantly from all the others.
you want the false data and dismiss all the other data sets. and why? because that one wrong data set confirms your already held believe, and the many other data sets are ignored by you, because they do not support your believe.
you seem to be the sort of person that is into the believing things , like AGW is a hoax a worldwide conspiracy or like your believe in god. Science is not about faith
@Aanthanur "science is not about faith” then why do you follow the faith-based religion (redundant of course) of the Man Made Global Warming Wingnuts?
As I have out debated you and pointed out the serious flaws in your religion--a person of science (like me) might be tempted to consider other possibilities. You and your religion....I guess not.
@Aanthanur I feel sad for you. In this discourse of posts you admit that the CRU wanted to "hide the decline", "use a trick to hide the decline", "erase all e-mail proof" and "discredit other scientists who disagree with us".
And yet, I have the problem!
Take care my foolish friend (or, as Stalin called you, "the useful idiots"). I am sure Pope Gore is laughing all the way to the bank!
@mikefastener yes they did hide the decline in the graph, but not the data, does that mean you finally understand the difference? wow only took you a week to get it.
Not one single mail was deleted, and the scientists in question did discredit themself by publishing stuff that was incorrect but their freidns did the peer review.
@Aanthanur My silly friend...I don't find you amusing....I find you sad.
You agree they hid the data in their trick with the graph. Not a single e-mail was deleted because they were caught in time. You agree they discredited anyone that might hurt their income stream.
@Aanthanur My poor friend--I ask you multiple questions about the lies and deceit at the CRU. You constantly refuse to answer. Hope you enjoy your religion.
and btw, the tree ring data is not theirs, they merely used them, and if you had actually read the link i gave you to the document in question, you would have seen where they got it from, it never was hidden as data, it was merely hidden in the graphic, because that would have falsified the graph.
@mikefastener no, as i already explained, the tree ring data was good as long it showed the same as the other proxies and the actual thermometer data records. But as it from the 1950 on showed results that did not fit the other proxy data and the thermometers, it was shown that this data is not reliable anymore.
@mikefastener the only religious person here is you.
the data was good as long it reflected reality, when it started to show differences to all the other methods, it was concluded that the tree ring data is no longer reliable.
But i explained that to you already, you are just in total denial.
@Aanthanur "the data was good as long (sic) it reflected reality" means to Gobal Warming Wingnuts, "the data was good as long as it kept grant money coming in and improved our income".
Otherwise, there is no other reason to "hide data" ....right?
he is like those creatards. He knows nothing about the scientific process or the data in question. He believes data was hidden, which is a blatant lie, only in one graph, the RESULTS from the tree ring data was adjusted because we know tree ring data are not giving the right temperatures anymore. We know because we also have thermometers, they are fairly accurate, and compared to tree ring data, it shows the tree ring data is not correct anymore after 1960.
@Aanthanur This silly fool is sounding more outrageous by the moment! Why did the CRU have tree ring data unless they were going to use it? When it did not back up their religion (money making religion) they then decided to hide it! Wow--create a religion and ignore all data that does not back you up!
Sounds more and more like the religion of man-made global warming with Pope Gore!
@mikefastener Why did the CRU have tree ring data unless they were going to use it?.....
I have told you already, i have shown you the graph. and posted the description of the graph.
the made a long time graph that went further back as temperature recordings. so they used so called proxies. for example tree rings, from them they can calculate the temperature. and until the '50-'60 there was no discrepancy between the different methods. but tree rings differ from the 60's on.
@Aanthanur Finally!!! An admission that the tree ring data is questionable!!!
So--use it for measurements in the past (when there were no thermometers) and once it disagrees with your religion, discard it! How do you know it was accurate in the past?
Wow--my high school debating techniques are easily winning this argument.
@mikefastener the tree ring data always was questionable from the 50-60's on, that is what i tried to show you, wow man, that took you several days to finally get it. but hey, you gave your best.
@Aanthanur Oh my goodness! (It doesn't get better than this!) So, "the tree ring data always was questionable from the 50-60's on"--but, not questionable when it disagrees with your religion!
@Aanthanur My poor silly friend (who, BTW, did not have the courage to respond to me directly). So you believe it was okay for the employees of the CRU to hide things....what are you hiding?
@mikefastener it is in no way an ethical issue, no data was hidden. the data was always there, even linked to it.
but when they actually used parts of the data, they did hide the wrong parts of th data, which is an established fact that the tree ring data is not accurate anymore.
My goodness! You certainly have a fixation on this religion, don't you?
No, you did not answer my questions; but, like a good disciple; you feel that by repeating a lie, that, somehow, it will eventually be viewed as a truth!
Oh well, you did you best (and, likely your techniques may have worked on a weaker debating opponent).
Take care and best of luck with your ministry of man made global warming.
and btw, you are one of the weakest debating opponents i have ever had.
Maybe it was enough for you in high school to win some debates with one tiny quote out of context. but in the grown up world. you will have to learn very much.
go back to you bible class with talking snakes etc...
you are not ready to debate science, you don't know what science is.
@Aanthanur I am getting so tired of asking you again and again to clarify the disgusting actions of the CRU employees. (None of us would call them, "scientists".)
Sorry that my high school techniques easily out-debated you-maybe you need to practice against stronger opponents-(unfortunately, that will get you angry as all global warming wingnuts do!)
Oh well, good luck at selling your religion and let me know when your bibles are ready!
(I understand your pope, Mr. Gore has some available!)
@mikefastener i have explained to you many times, there was no wrongdoing at all. all you would need to do is read the emails in context and with a bit of knowledge what they talk about.
But you only read "hide the decline" and assume it is a global decline in temperatures , while it is merely a decline in the tree ring data do to acid rain.
there you stand with your pants down and your little quote and a lack of knowledge :)
@Aanthanur These CRU employees were trying to destroy the reputations of honest scientists who wanted the truth to come out---for the third time, please respond to this crime!
BTW...."hide the decline....merely a decline in tree ring data"....why hide anything at all unless you are afraid of it’s' implications?
Many questions from me and you seem to be afraid to answer.
@Aanthanur Interesting! Scientists that have a different point-of-view than the current religion, have "corrupted the peer review process". Wow! How is this different than the Spanish Inquisition?
Yes, yes, yes...why hide something? Because it disagrees with the money making MMGW religion so it must be hidden rather than let everyone evaluate and decide.
When do you go to church in your religion? On Sundays? "gore is not even a scientist" so he is similar to those CRU employees..right?
@mikefastener no scientists that were not able to prove their claims, not scientists with a different point of view....
And again i have to ask you. What is more reliable, the tree ring data or thermometers?
when several independent measuring methods show similar results, and one method , and only one method differs from all those other methods. what do you think, Is the one method that differs from all the others the correct method or a wrong method?
@Aanthanur "no scientists that were not able to prove their claims". Well then, why were these CRU employees so anxious to discredit them? (Those scientists' work would discredit them itself!)
"What is more reliable, the tree ring data or thermometers?" For the third time, I will go with the CRU employees who wanted to hide the data or decline. They must have thought tree ring data was important or they would not want to hide it..correct?
My goodness, I win every point, every time, right?
@Aanthanur You seem very confused! I indeed will go with the CRU employees (in their paranoia about hiding the tree ring data--therefore, it must have seemed important to them).
But, I have a higher level of ethics than they do. I would not hide data; but, simply let my peers decide on its value.
How about you? Would you hide data if it disagreed with your religion?
you are laughable, i have answered all your questions backed up my claims, PM'd you links to the document in question, named various peer reviewed papers on the matter, have show you he did in no way hide the data, but merely used a mathematical trick to remove the false data, so the chart does not get falsified.
This is a well known problem in climate science, the tree data doesn't fit the other methods anymore.
@Aanthanur My poor friend! After 3 attempts, you never answered the question about the CRU scientists attempting to crush their opponents to the religion of man-made global warming. (Obviously the scientists knew that could affect their funding.)
No shame on your part--I was very successful in debating class in pointing out the weaknesses of my opponent's positions.
Hope for you that you find a weaker debating opponent in your next encounter.
@mikefastener i know you have a hard time understating anything, but rather than keeping askingme, just reread the answers i have given, i have answered all you questions, but you have so no clue what you are talking about here, that you somehow believe you are correct with your claims.
its like those weirdos that claim there is no evidence for Evolution.
at mikefastener : You still don't understand the whole issue, no data was hidden, the mail was about one single graphic on the cover of a brochure. and on the backside of that cover, it actually directs you to the data, with sources and direct links.......
but even after i send you a link to the brochure you still didn't even take a look at it, and remain harping on a little quote of which you have no clue what it means, which you have demonstrated very clearly.
@mikefastener No e-mails were deleted. No data was hidden. I explained it to you already, but you do not even look into it, you have your position and will not move one iota.
have you read the paper that cause the critique of Climate research's peer review process? i guess not.
@Aanthanur "No e-mails were deleted"....are you saying that someone who is making attempts to delete e-mails is ethical? (Even if he was caught before his little scheme?) A little "trick" was used to hide data--you admitted this already. The disgusting belittling of colleagues who disagreed?....you have not yet had the courage to address.
I guess your religion cannot be broken with mere facts....have you gone to a confessional yet?
@mikefastener you are a blatant liar . i have over and over and over again told you and showed you that no data was hidden at all, the description of the graph in question does directly link to the original external data.
a part of wrong data was removed from a graph so it shows the correct temperatures and not those that were known to be incorrect.
you never answered my question.
What is more reliable, temps calculated from tree ring data or temps measured with thermometers?
"AGW is backed by evidence"....hmm. Why do I have the suspicion that a few years ago you would have been quoting this so-called evidence produced by the CRU!!! (Remember the place that hides data, discredits those that disagree and attempts to destroy e-mails incriminating themselves?) My-o-my...this has to be an, "inconvenient truth" for you, isn't it? Climategate, Glaciergate, UNgate, ignoring the MEW period.
I guess nothing can change your mind once you have converted to this religion.
ok when that is your answer to my posts... i give up, you just want to believe in a huge conspiracy. You do not even look into it, you merely want to believe it is a conspiracy. sad.
@Aanthanur Sorry, my sad friend. After me asking you 5 times about why the scientists at the CRU would want to, "hide the tree ring data" you have refused to answer each time. I am a logical individual who seeks the truth and not the faith-based MMGW belief (which, by definition makes it a religion).
If I have caused you to even, momentarily look in a mirror, my job is done.
Take care! (And may you find a weaker debating opponent next time.)
@mikefastener you are laughable, i have answered all your questions backed up my claims, PM'd you links to the document in question, named various peer reviewed papers on the matter, have show you he did in no way hide the data, but merely used a mathematical trick to remove the false data, so the chart does not get falsified.
This is a well known problem in science, the tree data diesnt fitt the other methods anymore.
@Aanthanur I'm sorry my silly friend, you sound like a fool! To quote you, "in no way hide the data"; yet, a quote from the CRU scientist e-mail asks how they can, "hide the data". OMG....does the truth mean nothing to your religion?
I look forward to a response. (Please, don't make it as pathetic as your other posts!)
@mikefastener nowhere in the mails it says "hide the data" it actually says "hide the decline" and do you meanwhile know what decline he meant? did you at least under stand that?
and no, i am not angry. why would i? everyone reading this can see that i actually backed up my claims, and you delivered noting other than a tiny little quote. You can lie to yourself, but that will not fool me, nor most others reading your post.
@Aanthanur My poor friend, we all understand what "hide" means (rather than publish but explain, discount, question, etc.). Shameful! Only a child would hide something and they do it when they know they are doing something wrong...agreed?
Do I believe in religions? One religion I do not believe in is man-made global warming! (Unlike you.)
BTW--since it is a religion, is it Minister Gore or Father Gore or what?
@Aanthanur You seem to be getting very confused! Why do you keep confusing science with man-made global warming? They are 2 different things! MMGW is a faith based belief ie. a religion with ministers and donations. We are now in the inquisition stage of MMGW where heretics are burned at the stake (or the 21st century equivalent) and MMGW fanatics scream that, "there is no other way!!!”
@mikefastener AGW is backed by evidence, it is a field of science not a religion like your believe in gods an talking snakes , people living in wales, or global floods.
and nobody here is screaming. almost nobody is reading our conversation, so what is your point?
i have shown you wrong in all the points you brought up.
and you have nothing , nothing else than a tiny little quote ripped out of context. and even after explaining to you the context, you still don't get it.
@mikefastener Do you honestly believe the temperatures calculated from tree ring data is actually more accurate than the actual measurement with thermo meters?
You have absolutely no knowledge on the matter, but some how do to a few out of context ripped words, you believe your religion is true and your denial of reality somehow supported by evidence.....
you have done no reading about it outside of CT sites like prisonplanet and the other AJ nonsense.
@Aanthanur You have painted yourself in a corner, my friend and you seem to be getting very angry!!!
So, to quote you, "Do you honestly believe....tree ring data....” yet, that, CRU scientist must have believed it otherwise he would not want to, "hide the data".
No shame on your part---I won many debates in high school. (I have a knack for getting to the truth quickly and showing the hypocrisy of my opponent's position. A gift I guess.)
@Aanthanur OMG...I just learned of this. These disgusting individuals (I'd hardly call them scientists) should be ashamed! Which one of them lost their jobs?
Luckily the man-made global warming religion seems to be losing steam!
@mikefastener oh dear...... wtf are you on about? there was no wrongdoing on the side of the scientists. There were several independent investigations into the case in different countries around the globe, and all find, there is not wrongdoing.
Deniers have taken mails out of context or simply dont understand the science behind it. They made themselves laughable. AGW is real and backed by science, its not a religion. I would love to deny it. But the facts don't change for me.
@Aanthanur My friend....I understand all so-called "independent investigations" were by fellow climate scientists (which have a very healthly financial interest in spreading this religion).
If AGW (the religion) is real--why did these CRU individuals (I'd hardly call them scientists) have to "hide the decline" or censor colleagues who disagree with them?
Many questions my friend and you seem not to want to seek the answers!
@mikefastener Hide the decline? oh dear that sounds really like they scamm us, shock.
but wait, what decline did he mean? Oh the decline in the tree-ring data since the 50's, why did the tree-ring data indicate a decline in temperature? we don't know for sure, but we do know that it does not fit the other measurement methods we have that actually do really measure the temps. So we have weather stations saying its warmer, we have satellites saying its warmer.
@mikefastener so when the indirect temp measurements from the tree-rings does not fit the actual direct measurement anymore, we can safely assume that the tree-ring method is not reliable anymore since the direct temperature measurements tell us so. thus we best hide that decline otherwise it is only falsifying the results. So he ended up "hiding the decline". like i said, out of context....
@Aanthanur So when we find data that refutes our religious beliefs (a belief that is pulling in millions of dollars of grant money each year) was must ignore it, right?
I'm sure the church had similar thoughts towards Galileo’s evidence centuries ago. No wonder more and more people are calling man-made global warming what it truly is....a religion (faith based by definition).
@Aanthanur The scientists must have believed that temperatures calculated from tree rings are more reliable than thermometers---otherwise, they would not have, "to hide the data".
@mikefastener erm no, the other way around, tree rings are great for the era where no temperature recordings existed. But since the 50's they have changed, it is assumed it has to do with acid rain.
until the 50's the tree rings aligned pretty perfect with the other measurement methods, but since the 50's it doesn't anymore, so hide that incorrect part of the data.
@mikefastener you mean like K. R. Bri¡a, F. H. Schweingruber, P. D. Jones, T. J. Osborn, I. C. Harris,
S. G. Shiyatov, E. A. Vaganov and H. Grudd did in their study, Trees tell of past climates: but are they
speaking less clearly today?
Proceedings of the Royal Society 1998
or
D'Arrigo, Rosanne; Wilson, Rob; Liepert, Beate; Cherubini, Paolo. "On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes" in 2008
@Aanthanur Yes, I do have a question....why did the CRU scientists have to "hide the data" if these other esteemed scientists had already settled the case?
(Nothing would have to be hidden unless the CRU scientists were afraid of others finding out something they didn’t want them to.)
“Not publishing the data”, “not including the data”, “the data is not relevant” are ethical.
@Aanthanur I heard of a very interesting study where Climate Scientists and personalities (ie. Gore) incomes were graphed against media hype of the religion of MMGW. It showed a direct correlation (in fact, a stronger correlation than CO2 and temperature).
@Aanthanur A little political science lesson--follow the politicians who follow the voters!
So many politicians have jumped back from the edge of the precipice with MMGW (unbelievable investment, no guarantee the money would do anything and an unproven scientific case).
The public is now rightly concerned about the economy.
@Aanthanur I am afraid that the conspiracy tends to implicate the religion of man-made global warming.
(Otherwise, TV personalities and Climate Scientists who are making millions off of this little gig would not get so very angry when someone mentions the medieval warming period. These people consider that an, "inconvenient truth".)
@Aanthanur Love it!!! These climate change scientists (who are getting millions of $ in grants based on the religion of MMGW) and want us to destroy our way of life based on weak arguments, now say there is still evidence to gather on a similar warming period only a thousand years ago!
Don't they feel they should "benchmark" first before making their outrageous claims?
@mikefastener And as you think AGW is a religion, i will tell you what i see. I see the deniers doing the same as the creationists. they both try to discredit a field of science by attempting to poke holes in its theories instead of putting together their own theory.
When AGW was a myth, it would be easy for people to put together a contradicting study. but strangely enough they are not interested in that, they merely point finger and yell, lies, all lies.
@mikefastener is also PMed you a link to the document in question where you can see the sources he used to make the graph and where you can read about the tree ring problematic.
@Aanthanur Interesting that in spite of your comments about why the tree ring data was problematic, the scientist who wanted to "hide the data" was more likely concerned that the data was problematic to his personal income stream!
Oh No? The science hasn't been compromised? Except that the data doesn't show global warming, That's all. What ever happened to Science being about trying to explain observable fact rather than bending it to fit your idea?
@portoqwerty That is hardly the case, I am not a global warming skeptic but I think that some scientists have some valid evidence that shows there have been many lies about global warming, for example in an independent study the UK government found that many of facts in 'An inconvenient truth' were incorrect, sure this doesn't mean that much but it still shows that both sides arent telling the truth. I think it doesnt matter whether global warming is real we should still protect the environment
the tree ring data showed a decline in temperature where the actual data that was measured with accurate thermometers and is publicly available in many databases from many different places shows an increase in average annual temperatures. In other words while the actual temperature has been rising the tree ring data shows a decline. Tree ring growth is affected by many other things aside from temperature though so they had to "hide the decline" in the tree ring temperature.
Not the same deal. The big deal was tree-ring data. There's a Q&A on BBC regarding this, but because of the need for controversy I doubt it will leave the unsupported doubt to rest.
Cherry picking the issues from the released e-mails - what about suppressing Freedom of Information request? Or deleting emails and data or manipulating the peer review process?
You can buy into Al Gores lie if you want, and why does he still live in a huge inefficient mansion, drive a 10mi. per gal limo, fly around in a fuel guziling private jet? The only "Green" he cares about is the amount that will go into his pocket from fools like you!
What does Al Gore have to do with it? He just presented the science. He didn't get it perfect but the mistakes were minor. But what really matters is science, not CNN and certainly not Lies Inc. (aka Fox News)
Gore's mansion is now certified as LEED by the Green Building Council. This means it has the best ratings in sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources and indoor environmental quality.
@zaimur What a stupid analogy. Scientists aren't sitting around trying to figure out which one of them are closest to an imaginary being that none of them have ever seen. They have evidence and studies and questions to look at. Consensus isn't a scientific argument, consensus builds when the evidence points strongly in one direction. The fact that such a strong consensus has been built on empirical evidence is a strong common sense argument for seeing past the denialist morons.
Wildkkat1. Do you really buy all that oil company bollocks? You can pretend the many threads of evidence don't exist and you can pretend that the emails indicate a massive conspiracy but you haven't got a factual leg to stand on. The warming is real. We are causing it.
@rugbyguy59 Alright well then if the warming is real and you stand by the theory, then i will send you my carbon tax bills once i recieve them. And since you are such an educated scientist im sure you wont have a problem saving the world
I'll pay your bills as long as you don't use anything that requires carbon based energy. Otherwise you do the damage you pay the bill. Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out what is really happening doesn't mean you aren't responsible for your own actions.
@rugbyguy59 Haha, well that pretty much is impossible cause of the fact that i BREATH OUT CO2. The fact is that you dont know what the hell your talking about because you base your bias views on government handled sources that can be classified and forged. There are 30,000 SCIENTISTS opposing al gores theory, are you saying all the proffesionals are conspiracy theorists. Get your grade 9 science straight asshole
The CO2 you breath out is part of the natural carbon cycle. It isn't a problem. It's the fossil fuels.
Last time I checked the 30,000 scientists were mostly undergrads and dead people. How come every major national scientific organization in the world accepts AGW? 90 to 95% of scientists accept AGW, too. Your 30,000 scientists are minor characters.
@rugbyguy59, what you have to ask yourself is who funds these national scientific organizations you speak of? One big donor is, oh let me see, GOVERNMENT. If these organizations don't play ball and support whatever agenda the government is pushing, then guess what? No grants, no subsidies, no money honey.
Who owns the government? International bankers. The elite. Rockefellars. Rothchilds, and other assorted evil control freaks. Global carbon tax. What better way to increase their power?
@BRYAN351 Who funds the skeptics? Some get their money from the very same governments and others get it directly from big coal and oil.
If I'm comfortably in control of the world as you say then why do I fund a group of scientists who are telling everyone that we have to change the basis of the economic system? Your conspiracy doesn't make any sense.
If you paid attention to this issue you'd know scientists have led the agenda not govern
Demenocal there at the end looks like an assessory to the crime lying for the warmists. Sounds like he's under duress or something. Science is not consensus and consensus is not science. And the supposed consensus is starting to wane. Trenberth even admits not being able to account for "the current lack of warrming". Phil Jones: "Kevin and I will keep them out....even if we have to redefine what peer review literature is". Yeah, that's what I call honest science. Face it, ur GW scam is over.
wildnites558 7 months ago
Al Gore should be put in jail. He knew from the beginning that global warming was a big lie and with that lie he has made 600 million dollars.
acuaman42 10 months ago
Back to you! *gets food out of teeth*
(3:56)
ebgrisi 11 months ago
it's a conspiracy to take your money! a tax scam!
lol...
Darusdei 1 year ago
again , you mistake the USA for the whole world, your Gore is a nobody here, He is a politician...
and not a scientist.
You are the one with a religious believe here. you are the one that wants to use the data that is known to be wrong, merely because it confirms your religions of AGW denial.
you are not educated nor intelligent enough to get the matter behind the quotes.
and you are willfully staying ignorant on the matter.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
a guy that does not understand that tree ring data is not as reliable as thermometers.
when he wants to know the temperatures he drills a holen in a tree and starts calculating the temperature from the tree rings.
just because he is to dumb to read a thermometer. i wonder what he does when he has fever lol.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur One attempts to have a discussion; but, for some that believe in a religion, there is no reasoning.
I wonder why the CRU would hide data that disagrees with their income stream?
Interesting question that Minister Aathanur refuses to answer.
Oh well, maybe he is consulting with Pope Gore.
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener little liar. no data was hidden, only wrong data was excluded because it was wrong.
i know your religion trusts more in tree ring than in thermometers, but i am sorry, the rest of the world does prefer thermometers and not tree rings.
try again.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur Yes Minister. "tricks" "hiding the decline" "discrediting others who disagree" "climategate" "glaciergate" "UNgate" "CRUgate"
Lots of evidence; however, your religion forbids you to acknowledge it.
Oh well, you are running out of excuses and it may be time for you to run away.
As most Global Warming Wingnuts do at this time.
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener you are running in circles :)
you have no evidence at all, because what you have is something you don't understand.
would you have looked inot the matter yourself, you would realize how laughable your hide the decline nonsense is.
you do not even understand why the tree ring data is know to be wrong. all other methods show something different, including thermometers, but you are indeed dumb enough to rather take the wrong data and make your case.
you are amusing me :) so easy
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur Painted yourself in a corner my friend and your are obviously getting angry!
Who said, "hide the decline"? It was you (and I am sure you wish you never made that confession).
Oh well, Minister aathanur, I hope your religion gives you faith! (Not the other way around!)
Just (continuing) to be wondering....
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener yeah i am totally angry, pissed off like hell, smashing my computer right now because some troll on the Internet is wrong.
:)
you are funny
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur Yes Minister aanthanur....I'm glad you feel you need a confessional.
Speak to Pope Al Gore your spirital leader for guidance.
snicker, snicker
mikefastener 1 year ago
"Sorry, my silly friend, this is getting tiring as I easily out-debate you in every post and you get angry."
funny enough it is you that has lost every single point in the debate, you were not able to backup any of your claims, you merely came back with the same question over and over again, and everytime i have answered the,.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
oh troll i am not in the mood to play today. maybe tomorrow.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
" Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly. "
the newest paper on the MWP and LIA in global context. in case you want to take a look at the science. google it.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur "Ethics in Scientific Research"--you will find it in any book regarding scientific research. I suggest you check it out.
(Note that I couldn't find any reference in there regarding, "hiding data that does not fit your religion".)
Do you have a reference, perhaps?
Let us know....
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener again, the religious accusation is just laughable, the only one that ever brought up something religious, was you, you brought up god lol. So even if AGW was a religion and not a science, it would be very hypocritical of you to use that against me :)
Data that was wrong was excluded. Do you want wrong data being shown to you?
yes i think that is what you want, you want data that confirms your believe, not accurate data.
try again :)
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur Sorry, my silly friend, this is getting tiring as I easily out-debate you in every post and you get angry.
So, you won't answer on critical issues because they disturb your religious beliefs (CRU scandal, Glaciergate, Climategate, UNgate). Oh well--you have told us so many times, that it is okay to hide something if it disagrees with your religion. Are you hiding anything in these posts? Just wondering.... (You may wish to run away at this point as most GWW do!)
mikefastener 1 year ago
Front cover: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using
palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long
instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal.
Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information).
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur I'm sorry, why was the MEW period not included? (You told me yourself that, "further evidence is needed for this period".) Is that because the admitted existence of such a period destroys your religion?
Wow--I am a good at debating! (Or, you are not very good!)
Hope I helped you to be honest with yourself.
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener aah finally you have a new point, gratz.
The document in question actually explains it. but i will explain in simpler words for you.
the MWP was a pretty regional event. it was not over the whole northern hemisphere. and when you take the data from all of the Northern hemisphere the MWP is pretty much gone, because other regions in the northern hemisphere were much colder. So actually the MWP was included.
the only complicated word i had to use was hemisphere, just google it.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur My poor friend, I raised this before (check your outgoing e-mails) and you will see that the GWW (Global Warming Wingnuts) said that, according to you, "further research in this area is needed".
Now you tell me in this post that the science is finished regarding the MWP!
Wow--you are being destroyed by my debating skills! (No wonder you are getting angry!)
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener i have posted you the newest research, a paper from 2009, you just need to google the totle i postet ;
" Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly. "
yes further research was needed and was done, here you find the results.
i hope you will read it.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur I hope you will look in a mirror.
I (like Galileo) had similar problems with your religion. A fixated point-of-view that there was no other way and that we should worship around the maypole of the silly Global Warming Wingnuts.
Remember: "Those that ignore history, are doomed to repeat it!"
Words to consider....agreed?
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener and at no point did i get angry.
after your 4th post i took a look at your profile and it was clear that you are a troll.
And trolls are in a huge need of attention. So i did you a favor and spend a huge amount of attention, only for you.
have fun :)
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur Take care--may you find a weaker debating opponent next time!
(If I caused you to look in a mirror about your position--my job is done!)
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener i will never find a weaker debating opponent ever. It is clear that you have not won one single debate in High School.
and considering your knowledge that you presented, i have to highly doubt you made it to High School.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur "I will never find a weaker debating opponent ever (sic)". When then, I guess you lose every debate!
You never admitted to what you are hiding (since you felt comfortable in the CRU hiding things).
Do you have anything to hide or are hiding it now?
Just wondering....
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener i am not hiding anything. You try to hide your ignorance about tree ring data and other proxies, but you do a lousy job.
Just wondering? you are like the 9/11 truthers, just asking questions......
oh kiddy.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur How embarrassing for you to be caught in protecting CRU employees hiding data and you getting angry when accused of hiding things!
Hope that egg on your face is not getting too hard to wipe off!
And I hope I helped clarify things for you!
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener where did i get angry?
why would i?
I have no problem explaining you over and over again the things you ask. maybe one day you might learn from it.
once you actually start reading the stuff i direct you to.
You want the incorrect tree ring data, the rest of the world wants the accurate graph with the wrong data excluded
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur The "rest of the world" does not want data hidden from them!
Why do you constantly defend this unethical practice?
(Unless you are too caught up in your religion! Say, "hi" to Pope Gore for me.)
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener you just resort to lies now, no data was hiden, the data was always avaible, the document in question even links to them......
merely in the graph, the faulty parts were exuded as i told you already 20 times.
some are just not so fast in learning. no worry, one day also you will get it.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur maybe one day you will come clean and not "hide" data because it does not fit your religious need!
Until that day, at least, be honest with youself.
(You will find honesty uplifting--try it!)
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener there are many data sets. one sets of data differs significantly from all the others.
you want the false data and dismiss all the other data sets. and why? because that one wrong data set confirms your already held believe, and the many other data sets are ignored by you, because they do not support your believe.
you seem to be the sort of person that is into the believing things , like AGW is a hoax a worldwide conspiracy or like your believe in god. Science is not about faith
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur "science is not about faith” then why do you follow the faith-based religion (redundant of course) of the Man Made Global Warming Wingnuts?
As I have out debated you and pointed out the serious flaws in your religion--a person of science (like me) might be tempted to consider other possibilities. You and your religion....I guess not.
Take care, Minister Aanthanur.
mikefastener 1 year ago
Comment removed
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@mikefastener you are a person of science? you are the person of quote fragments.
and your religion is AGW denial.
you have presented nothing beside the tiny fragments of quotes you have no clue about what they are talking.
I explained to you already, but as it is science it is hard to understand for you. but we can also talk about other fields of science.
How about Evolution, do you also deny that?
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur I believe science is evolving into a more honest, ethical practice.
Now that I find that the CRU was "hiding data" and "hiding the decline"--I wonder....
The only conclusion is that this weirdo idea of MMGW must be more religion than science.
Right?
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener you demonstrate your stupidity here.
there was no data hiden you liar.
you are the one that is dishonest because the facts do not support your already held believe that AGW is a hoax and a worldwide conspiracy.
you are a littel weirdo that believe in to much CT nonsense.
you are still ignoratn to the fact that the tree ring data is wrong.
the only reason you believe it is correct is because it fits your religion.
and you are projecting your behavior on me. get help.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur I feel sad for you. In this discourse of posts you admit that the CRU wanted to "hide the decline", "use a trick to hide the decline", "erase all e-mail proof" and "discredit other scientists who disagree with us".
And yet, I have the problem!
Take care my foolish friend (or, as Stalin called you, "the useful idiots"). I am sure Pope Gore is laughing all the way to the bank!
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener yes they did hide the decline in the graph, but not the data, does that mean you finally understand the difference? wow only took you a week to get it.
Not one single mail was deleted, and the scientists in question did discredit themself by publishing stuff that was incorrect but their freidns did the peer review.
try again :) you are amusing.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur My silly friend...I don't find you amusing....I find you sad.
You agree they hid the data in their trick with the graph. Not a single e-mail was deleted because they were caught in time. You agree they discredited anyone that might hurt their income stream.
Wow! Getting to feel a little sheepish about now?
You should!
Hope I helped you in this discourse...
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener oh dear, you are pretty dumb.
as i have explained, no data was hidden, they linked to the data.
are you seriously not able to get that? special scholl didnt help you much.....
but you are still amusing me.
a bit dumb, but amusing.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur My poor friend--I ask you multiple questions about the lies and deceit at the CRU. You constantly refuse to answer. Hope you enjoy your religion.
mikefastener 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikefastener i have answered several times you liar.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
and btw, the tree ring data is not theirs, they merely used them, and if you had actually read the link i gave you to the document in question, you would have seen where they got it from, it never was hidden as data, it was merely hidden in the graphic, because that would have falsified the graph.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur My goodness this is indeed getting good! (Everyone…time for me to go in for the "kill".)
So the tree ring data was good while it supported your religion; but, not good once it contravened your religion?
(I do indeed believe I am cleaning up here!!!)
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener no, as i already explained, the tree ring data was good as long it showed the same as the other proxies and the actual thermometer data records. But as it from the 1950 on showed results that did not fit the other proxy data and the thermometers, it was shown that this data is not reliable anymore.
i hope you understand it now :)
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur Yes, yes, yes--tree ring data only as good as long as it follows your religion!
Didn't Stalin call you guys, "the useful idiots"?
I'm sure your Pope, Al Gore is laughing right now.
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener the only religious person here is you.
the data was good as long it reflected reality, when it started to show differences to all the other methods, it was concluded that the tree ring data is no longer reliable.
But i explained that to you already, you are just in total denial.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur "the data was good as long (sic) it reflected reality" means to Gobal Warming Wingnuts, "the data was good as long as it kept grant money coming in and improved our income".
Otherwise, there is no other reason to "hide data" ....right?
mikefastener 1 year ago
he is like those creatards. He knows nothing about the scientific process or the data in question. He believes data was hidden, which is a blatant lie, only in one graph, the RESULTS from the tree ring data was adjusted because we know tree ring data are not giving the right temperatures anymore. We know because we also have thermometers, they are fairly accurate, and compared to tree ring data, it shows the tree ring data is not correct anymore after 1960.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur This silly fool is sounding more outrageous by the moment! Why did the CRU have tree ring data unless they were going to use it? When it did not back up their religion (money making religion) they then decided to hide it! Wow--create a religion and ignore all data that does not back you up!
Sounds more and more like the religion of man-made global warming with Pope Gore!
Hope I clarified things for everyone....
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener Why did the CRU have tree ring data unless they were going to use it?.....
I have told you already, i have shown you the graph. and posted the description of the graph.
the made a long time graph that went further back as temperature recordings. so they used so called proxies. for example tree rings, from them they can calculate the temperature. and until the '50-'60 there was no discrepancy between the different methods. but tree rings differ from the 60's on.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur Finally!!! An admission that the tree ring data is questionable!!!
So--use it for measurements in the past (when there were no thermometers) and once it disagrees with your religion, discard it! How do you know it was accurate in the past?
Wow--my high school debating techniques are easily winning this argument.
Egg on your face, my friend?
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener the tree ring data always was questionable from the 50-60's on, that is what i tried to show you, wow man, that took you several days to finally get it. but hey, you gave your best.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur Oh my goodness! (It doesn't get better than this!) So, "the tree ring data always was questionable from the 50-60's on"--but, not questionable when it disagrees with your religion!
Listen to yourself. (You sound like a fool!)
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener lol read what you wrote, i guess you wanted to write the opposite
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur You refuse to answer don't you?
Since you are comfortable in the CRU employees "hiding things"....what are you hiding?
Let us know.
mikefastener 1 year ago
LOL mikefastener believes tree ring data is more accurate than thermometers.
and he claims he was at a High School, sounds more like he was high in school.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur My poor silly friend (who, BTW, did not have the courage to respond to me directly). So you believe it was okay for the employees of the CRU to hide things....what are you hiding?
Just wondering.....
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener yes it was ok to hide the incorrect tree ring results, else it would have falsified the graph.
i see we are slowly getting somewhere.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur I'm glad you finally admit that hiding data is a questionable ethical issue!
(No wonder science moves so slowly when it takes this long to establish an obvious fact!)
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener it is in no way an ethical issue, no data was hidden. the data was always there, even linked to it.
but when they actually used parts of the data, they did hide the wrong parts of th data, which is an established fact that the tree ring data is not accurate anymore.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
i haven't even seen Gores movie. he plays so no role here, i am from Switzerland.
Gore may be big in the US, but here, most people would not recognize him.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur Gore is the "pope" of your religion! Why deny it?
mikefastener 1 year ago
My goodness! You certainly have a fixation on this religion, don't you?
No, you did not answer my questions; but, like a good disciple; you feel that by repeating a lie, that, somehow, it will eventually be viewed as a truth!
Oh well, you did you best (and, likely your techniques may have worked on a weaker debating opponent).
Take care and best of luck with your ministry of man made global warming.
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener point out the lie pls.
and btw, you are one of the weakest debating opponents i have ever had.
Maybe it was enough for you in high school to win some debates with one tiny quote out of context. but in the grown up world. you will have to learn very much.
go back to you bible class with talking snakes etc...
you are not ready to debate science, you don't know what science is.
maybe in a few years you will. good luck.
Have a nice day :)
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur I am getting so tired of asking you again and again to clarify the disgusting actions of the CRU employees. (None of us would call them, "scientists".)
Sorry that my high school techniques easily out-debated you-maybe you need to practice against stronger opponents-(unfortunately, that will get you angry as all global warming wingnuts do!)
Oh well, good luck at selling your religion and let me know when your bibles are ready!
(I understand your pope, Mr. Gore has some available!)
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener i have explained to you many times, there was no wrongdoing at all. all you would need to do is read the emails in context and with a bit of knowledge what they talk about.
But you only read "hide the decline" and assume it is a global decline in temperatures , while it is merely a decline in the tree ring data do to acid rain.
there you stand with your pants down and your little quote and a lack of knowledge :)
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur These CRU employees were trying to destroy the reputations of honest scientists who wanted the truth to come out---for the third time, please respond to this crime!
BTW...."hide the decline....merely a decline in tree ring data"....why hide anything at all unless you are afraid of it’s' implications?
Many questions from me and you seem to be afraid to answer.
Why?
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener no those "honest" "scientists" have corrupted the peer review process of a respected scientific journal.
why hide something? because wrong data will falsify the result. someone that was at High School should know that actually, wrong data = wrong result.
always the same questions and you never learn, not even try to refute, you just come back with the same questions. like a broken record
there are no opes in science, and gore is not even a scientist.
Are you atheist?
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur Interesting! Scientists that have a different point-of-view than the current religion, have "corrupted the peer review process". Wow! How is this different than the Spanish Inquisition?
Yes, yes, yes...why hide something? Because it disagrees with the money making MMGW religion so it must be hidden rather than let everyone evaluate and decide.
When do you go to church in your religion? On Sundays? "gore is not even a scientist" so he is similar to those CRU employees..right?
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener no scientists that were not able to prove their claims, not scientists with a different point of view....
And again i have to ask you. What is more reliable, the tree ring data or thermometers?
when several independent measuring methods show similar results, and one method , and only one method differs from all those other methods. what do you think, Is the one method that differs from all the others the correct method or a wrong method?
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur "no scientists that were not able to prove their claims". Well then, why were these CRU employees so anxious to discredit them? (Those scientists' work would discredit them itself!)
"What is more reliable, the tree ring data or thermometers?" For the third time, I will go with the CRU employees who wanted to hide the data or decline. They must have thought tree ring data was important or they would not want to hide it..correct?
My goodness, I win every point, every time, right?
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener I will go with the CRU employees.....
ok then you agree that the tree ring data was not correct and thermometers are a better source for temperatures.
gratz.
only took you a few days to finally get it.
:)
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur You seem very confused! I indeed will go with the CRU employees (in their paranoia about hiding the tree ring data--therefore, it must have seemed important to them).
But, I have a higher level of ethics than they do. I would not hide data; but, simply let my peers decide on its value.
How about you? Would you hide data if it disagreed with your religion?
Are you hiding anything now?
Just wondering....
mikefastener 1 year ago
you are laughable, i have answered all your questions backed up my claims, PM'd you links to the document in question, named various peer reviewed papers on the matter, have show you he did in no way hide the data, but merely used a mathematical trick to remove the false data, so the chart does not get falsified.
This is a well known problem in climate science, the tree data doesn't fit the other methods anymore.
i have already answered it, but here again.
have a nice day :)
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur My poor friend! After 3 attempts, you never answered the question about the CRU scientists attempting to crush their opponents to the religion of man-made global warming. (Obviously the scientists knew that could affect their funding.)
No shame on your part--I was very successful in debating class in pointing out the weaknesses of my opponent's positions.
Hope for you that you find a weaker debating opponent in your next encounter.
Best of luck!!!
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener i know you have a hard time understating anything, but rather than keeping askingme, just reread the answers i have given, i have answered all you questions, but you have so no clue what you are talking about here, that you somehow believe you are correct with your claims.
its like those weirdos that claim there is no evidence for Evolution.
Aanthanur 1 year ago 4
somehow i can understand when you argue the tree ring data but It's hard to argue with thermometers.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
at mikefastener : You still don't understand the whole issue, no data was hidden, the mail was about one single graphic on the cover of a brochure. and on the backside of that cover, it actually directs you to the data, with sources and direct links.......
but even after i send you a link to the brochure you still didn't even take a look at it, and remain harping on a little quote of which you have no clue what it means, which you have demonstrated very clearly.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur Are you saying that discrediting those that disagree with you in the scientific community is not disgusting?
Are you saying that attempting to erase all evidence of your shameful e-mails is not unethical?
Are you saying that "hiding" something goes to the basis of professional behavior?
Wow--you may want to look in a mirror.
Just a suggestion....
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener No e-mails were deleted. No data was hidden. I explained it to you already, but you do not even look into it, you have your position and will not move one iota.
have you read the paper that cause the critique of Climate research's peer review process? i guess not.
have fun in your little denial cult.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur "No e-mails were deleted"....are you saying that someone who is making attempts to delete e-mails is ethical? (Even if he was caught before his little scheme?) A little "trick" was used to hide data--you admitted this already. The disgusting belittling of colleagues who disagreed?....you have not yet had the courage to address.
I guess your religion cannot be broken with mere facts....have you gone to a confessional yet?
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener you are a blatant liar . i have over and over and over again told you and showed you that no data was hidden at all, the description of the graph in question does directly link to the original external data.
a part of wrong data was removed from a graph so it shows the correct temperatures and not those that were known to be incorrect.
you never answered my question.
What is more reliable, temps calculated from tree ring data or temps measured with thermometers?
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur My silly friend!!! Why did your CRU scientists want to indeed hide the data or use a trick to conceal? Why won't you answer that question?
What is more reliable, temps ....tree ring data or ....temps thermometers?
Since these CRU scientists wanted to use tricks to hide the data, I will bow to their experience and say tree ring data!
(Otherwise, why would they want to hide it???)
Looking forward to your response...if you have one!
mikefastener 1 year ago
"AGW is backed by evidence"....hmm. Why do I have the suspicion that a few years ago you would have been quoting this so-called evidence produced by the CRU!!! (Remember the place that hides data, discredits those that disagree and attempts to destroy e-mails incriminating themselves?) My-o-my...this has to be an, "inconvenient truth" for you, isn't it? Climategate, Glaciergate, UNgate, ignoring the MEW period.
I guess nothing can change your mind once you have converted to this religion.
mikefastener 1 year ago
what is more reliable, temperature data calculated from tree rings or data from thermometers?
Aanthanur 1 year ago 3
ok when that is your answer to my posts... i give up, you just want to believe in a huge conspiracy. You do not even look into it, you merely want to believe it is a conspiracy. sad.
bye bye :)
have fun
Aanthanur 1 year ago 2
@Aanthanur Sorry, my sad friend. After me asking you 5 times about why the scientists at the CRU would want to, "hide the tree ring data" you have refused to answer each time. I am a logical individual who seeks the truth and not the faith-based MMGW belief (which, by definition makes it a religion).
If I have caused you to even, momentarily look in a mirror, my job is done.
Take care! (And may you find a weaker debating opponent next time.)
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener you are laughable, i have answered all your questions backed up my claims, PM'd you links to the document in question, named various peer reviewed papers on the matter, have show you he did in no way hide the data, but merely used a mathematical trick to remove the false data, so the chart does not get falsified.
This is a well known problem in science, the tree data diesnt fitt the other methods anymore.
Aanthanur 1 year ago 28
@Aanthanur I'm sorry my silly friend, you sound like a fool! To quote you, "in no way hide the data"; yet, a quote from the CRU scientist e-mail asks how they can, "hide the data". OMG....does the truth mean nothing to your religion?
I look forward to a response. (Please, don't make it as pathetic as your other posts!)
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener nowhere in the mails it says "hide the data" it actually says "hide the decline" and do you meanwhile know what decline he meant? did you at least under stand that?
and no, i am not angry. why would i? everyone reading this can see that i actually backed up my claims, and you delivered noting other than a tiny little quote. You can lie to yourself, but that will not fool me, nor most others reading your post.
why OMG? God, do you believe in religions lol?
Aanthanur 1 year ago 31
@Aanthanur My poor friend, we all understand what "hide" means (rather than publish but explain, discount, question, etc.). Shameful! Only a child would hide something and they do it when they know they are doing something wrong...agreed?
Do I believe in religions? One religion I do not believe in is man-made global warming! (Unlike you.)
BTW--since it is a religion, is it Minister Gore or Father Gore or what?
Just (continuing) to wonder.....
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener lol, so you believe in such a silly thing like gods that has absolutely no evidence at all.
and you believe science is a religion? lol? what's next you going to deny evolution? Gravity?
and Al Gore is a politician, and a lousy one, and surely not a scientist.
So go worship your laughable god and let the scientists do their work.
lol a Bible thumper saying there is no evidence for AGW, but he believes in god, talking snakes, creation and such silly stuff lol.
Aanthanur 1 year ago 3
@Aanthanur You seem to be getting very confused! Why do you keep confusing science with man-made global warming? They are 2 different things! MMGW is a faith based belief ie. a religion with ministers and donations. We are now in the inquisition stage of MMGW where heretics are burned at the stake (or the 21st century equivalent) and MMGW fanatics scream that, "there is no other way!!!”
Do you guys have hymns?
Just wondering....
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener AGW is backed by evidence, it is a field of science not a religion like your believe in gods an talking snakes , people living in wales, or global floods.
and nobody here is screaming. almost nobody is reading our conversation, so what is your point?
i have shown you wrong in all the points you brought up.
and you have nothing , nothing else than a tiny little quote ripped out of context. and even after explaining to you the context, you still don't get it.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur They don't say hide the data, they talk about deleting data files rather than making them available under the freedom of information act.
FantasticBob7000 5 months ago
@mikefastener Do you honestly believe the temperatures calculated from tree ring data is actually more accurate than the actual measurement with thermo meters?
You have absolutely no knowledge on the matter, but some how do to a few out of context ripped words, you believe your religion is true and your denial of reality somehow supported by evidence.....
you have done no reading about it outside of CT sites like prisonplanet and the other AJ nonsense.
you made a total fool out of yourself.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur You have painted yourself in a corner, my friend and you seem to be getting very angry!!!
So, to quote you, "Do you honestly believe....tree ring data....” yet, that, CRU scientist must have believed it otherwise he would not want to, "hide the data".
No shame on your part---I won many debates in high school. (I have a knack for getting to the truth quickly and showing the hypocrisy of my opponent's position. A gift I guess.)
mikefastener 1 year ago
BUSTED!
xD
MeatVision 1 year ago
Oh dear the Denialists failed extremely with "Climategate"
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur OMG...I just learned of this. These disgusting individuals (I'd hardly call them scientists) should be ashamed! Which one of them lost their jobs?
Luckily the man-made global warming religion seems to be losing steam!
Who could argue?
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener oh dear...... wtf are you on about? there was no wrongdoing on the side of the scientists. There were several independent investigations into the case in different countries around the globe, and all find, there is not wrongdoing.
Deniers have taken mails out of context or simply dont understand the science behind it. They made themselves laughable. AGW is real and backed by science, its not a religion. I would love to deny it. But the facts don't change for me.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur My friend....I understand all so-called "independent investigations" were by fellow climate scientists (which have a very healthly financial interest in spreading this religion).
If AGW (the religion) is real--why did these CRU individuals (I'd hardly call them scientists) have to "hide the decline" or censor colleagues who disagree with them?
Many questions my friend and you seem not to want to seek the answers!
Why?
Hope I caused you to look in a mirror!
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener Hide the decline? oh dear that sounds really like they scamm us, shock.
but wait, what decline did he mean? Oh the decline in the tree-ring data since the 50's, why did the tree-ring data indicate a decline in temperature? we don't know for sure, but we do know that it does not fit the other measurement methods we have that actually do really measure the temps. So we have weather stations saying its warmer, we have satellites saying its warmer.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur hmmmmm....so you trivalize the "hide the decline" comment by saying it has little meaning.
I wonder why those so-called scientists wanted to hide it then???
(Sorry, looks like a win for me here--or, more appropriately a win for those that see the scam of man-made global warming!)
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener so when the indirect temp measurements from the tree-rings does not fit the actual direct measurement anymore, we can safely assume that the tree-ring method is not reliable anymore since the direct temperature measurements tell us so. thus we best hide that decline otherwise it is only falsifying the results. So he ended up "hiding the decline". like i said, out of context....
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur So when we find data that refutes our religious beliefs (a belief that is pulling in millions of dollars of grant money each year) was must ignore it, right?
I'm sure the church had similar thoughts towards Galileo’s evidence centuries ago. No wonder more and more people are calling man-made global warming what it truly is....a religion (faith based by definition).
Agreed?
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener so you do believe the temperatures calculated from tree rings are more reliable than thermometers?
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur The scientists must have believed that temperatures calculated from tree rings are more reliable than thermometers---otherwise, they would not have, "to hide the data".
Agreed?
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener erm no, the other way around, tree rings are great for the era where no temperature recordings existed. But since the 50's they have changed, it is assumed it has to do with acid rain.
until the 50's the tree rings aligned pretty perfect with the other measurement methods, but since the 50's it doesn't anymore, so hide that incorrect part of the data.
Agreed?
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur Uhhhhh...no (you must not have a science background like I do).
You publish the tree ring data and explain why it is not relevant so that peer reviewers can decide themselves.
To "hide" the data is unethical.
Any questions?
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener you mean like K. R. Bri¡a, F. H. Schweingruber, P. D. Jones, T. J. Osborn, I. C. Harris,
S. G. Shiyatov, E. A. Vaganov and H. Grudd did in their study, Trees tell of past climates: but are they
speaking less clearly today?
Proceedings of the Royal Society 1998
or
D'Arrigo, Rosanne; Wilson, Rob; Liepert, Beate; Cherubini, Paolo. "On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes" in 2008
any questions?
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur Yes, I do have a question....why did the CRU scientists have to "hide the data" if these other esteemed scientists had already settled the case?
(Nothing would have to be hidden unless the CRU scientists were afraid of others finding out something they didn’t want them to.)
“Not publishing the data”, “not including the data”, “the data is not relevant” are ethical.
“Hiding the data” is not.
Agreed?
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener He did use a mathematical "trick to create a graph, and did in no way hide the data.
on the backside of the cover it say : Front Cover:
Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using
palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long
instrumental records.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur I heard of a very interesting study where Climate Scientists and personalities (ie. Gore) incomes were graphed against media hype of the religion of MMGW. It showed a direct correlation (in fact, a stronger correlation than CO2 and temperature).
What does that tell us?
Just wondering.....
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal.
Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more
details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (link) and the National Geophysical Data Center (link).
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@mikefastener (Sources of data: P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa and T.J. Osborn, University of East Anglia, UK; M.E. Mann,
University of Virginia, USA; R.S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts, USA; M.K. Hughes, University of
Arizona, USA; and the Hadley Centre, The Met. Office).
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@mikefastener what data shows more and more people deny AGW?
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur A little political science lesson--follow the politicians who follow the voters!
So many politicians have jumped back from the edge of the precipice with MMGW (unbelievable investment, no guarantee the money would do anything and an unproven scientific case).
The public is now rightly concerned about the economy.
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener spare me your conspiracy nonsense.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur I am afraid that the conspiracy tends to implicate the religion of man-made global warming.
(Otherwise, TV personalities and Climate Scientists who are making millions off of this little gig would not get so very angry when someone mentions the medieval warming period. These people consider that an, "inconvenient truth".)
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener the very paper in question here does mention the medieval warming period.
As
more evidence is acquired in tropical regions, eastern Asia and
western North America, palaeoclimatologists are revising their
perceptions of the millennium, particularly with regard to the
presumed Medieval Warm Period (MWP, ~900–1200) and to a
lesser extent the Little Ice Age (LIA ~1550–1850).
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur Love it!!! These climate change scientists (who are getting millions of $ in grants based on the religion of MMGW) and want us to destroy our way of life based on weak arguments, now say there is still evidence to gather on a similar warming period only a thousand years ago!
Don't they feel they should "benchmark" first before making their outrageous claims?
Unbelievable!!!
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener The MWP was
probably most manifest in the North Atlantic/European sector
where much of the early evidence originated. Over the data sparse
Southern Hemisphere, both the MWP and LIA are barely recognizable
features in the few mid-to-high latitude reconstructions
available
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@mikefastener And as you think AGW is a religion, i will tell you what i see. I see the deniers doing the same as the creationists. they both try to discredit a field of science by attempting to poke holes in its theories instead of putting together their own theory.
When AGW was a myth, it would be easy for people to put together a contradicting study. but strangely enough they are not interested in that, they merely point finger and yell, lies, all lies.
argumentum ad ignorantiam
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur BTW....on reviewing my replies--they appear, "adversarial".
I apologize; however, I really do believe that MMGW is now a religion.
(However, I do enjoy the discussion with someone who, obviously, knows their facts and believes. So many will debate one point and then “run away”.)
mikefastener 1 year ago
@mikefastener is also PMed you a link to the document in question where you can see the sources he used to make the graph and where you can read about the tree ring problematic.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur Interesting that in spite of your comments about why the tree ring data was problematic, the scientist who wanted to "hide the data" was more likely concerned that the data was problematic to his personal income stream!
Just an observation....
mikefastener 1 year ago
"Trick," ok. What about the word "hide?" She sure didn't address that WORD, did she?
cano21 1 year ago
They creatively put a monkey jawbone on a human skull.
Fucking brilliant,
Devious but brilliant.
They should still spend many years in prison IMO
crutmauler 1 year ago
No one is arguing the theory of Global warming they are challenging that they are calling it a fact.
Silkfox 1 year ago
Oh No? The science hasn't been compromised? Except that the data doesn't show global warming, That's all. What ever happened to Science being about trying to explain observable fact rather than bending it to fit your idea?
Nash1a 1 year ago
Phil Jones' CRU has been investigated by:
1. The House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee
and
2. An independent Scientific Assessment Panel picked on the advice of the Royal Society.
The findings of both inquiries are now in. Here they are:
1. ww w.publications.parliament.u k/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.p d f
2. ww w.uea.a c.u k/ma c/c omm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP
(remove spaces)
Professor Jones and the CRU were exonerated by both inquiries.
cristop5 1 year ago
"I dont understand science therefore its deceptive, and they are lying," - global warming skeptics
portoqwerty 1 year ago
@portoqwerty i guess your not taking into consideration the thousands of scientists that do not support global warming theory?
jadedforlyfe 1 year ago
@portoqwerty That is hardly the case, I am not a global warming skeptic but I think that some scientists have some valid evidence that shows there have been many lies about global warming, for example in an independent study the UK government found that many of facts in 'An inconvenient truth' were incorrect, sure this doesn't mean that much but it still shows that both sides arent telling the truth. I think it doesnt matter whether global warming is real we should still protect the environment
ampg80 1 year ago
@Dorfkanal Um, no, nobody under the Freedom of Information act is required to give up their own personal correspondence. Try again.
Shanbo26 1 year ago
B.S.
darin1701 1 year ago
This has never been shown on british news... cant find it any where on the bbc or the sun web site. nwo FTL
youcanrelate 1 year ago
the tree ring data showed a decline in temperature where the actual data that was measured with accurate thermometers and is publicly available in many databases from many different places shows an increase in average annual temperatures. In other words while the actual temperature has been rising the tree ring data shows a decline. Tree ring growth is affected by many other things aside from temperature though so they had to "hide the decline" in the tree ring temperature.
Unclesamslair 2 years ago
I wonder how many years will have to go by before people give up on the whole CO2 scare. They'll just move onto something else though.
IconicFiber 2 years ago
Not the same deal. The big deal was tree-ring data. There's a Q&A on BBC regarding this, but because of the need for controversy I doubt it will leave the unsupported doubt to rest.
grolgh 2 years ago
Cherry picking the issues from the released e-mails - what about suppressing Freedom of Information request? Or deleting emails and data or manipulating the peer review process?
Martintfre 2 years ago
How can these people sleep at night? Oh right...on pillows stuffed with Federal Reserve Notes...
No crime was committed. This and many organizations were required to submit their data under the Freedom Of Information Act, which is the law.
Due to the fact that criminals now run much of the system, they were able to refuse supplying information which they were required to supply by law.
This is when the hackers decided to force these crooks to keep the law by taking the entitled data.
tzychess 2 years ago
You can buy into Al Gores lie if you want, and why does he still live in a huge inefficient mansion, drive a 10mi. per gal limo, fly around in a fuel guziling private jet? The only "Green" he cares about is the amount that will go into his pocket from fools like you!
Wildkkat1 2 years ago
What does Al Gore have to do with it? He just presented the science. He didn't get it perfect but the mistakes were minor. But what really matters is science, not CNN and certainly not Lies Inc. (aka Fox News)
Gore's mansion is now certified as LEED by the Green Building Council. This means it has the best ratings in sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources and indoor environmental quality.
Get your facts straight before you repeat dogma..
rugbyguy59 2 years ago
Consensus is not a scientific argument. It's the way the Vatican Council works, where the majority of cardinals decides what is true and what is not.
zaimur 2 years ago
@zaimur What a stupid analogy. Scientists aren't sitting around trying to figure out which one of them are closest to an imaginary being that none of them have ever seen. They have evidence and studies and questions to look at. Consensus isn't a scientific argument, consensus builds when the evidence points strongly in one direction. The fact that such a strong consensus has been built on empirical evidence is a strong common sense argument for seeing past the denialist morons.
rugbyguy59 2 years ago
The only evidence you can offer comes from skewed sources!
Wildkkat1 2 years ago
Wildkkat1. Do you really buy all that oil company bollocks? You can pretend the many threads of evidence don't exist and you can pretend that the emails indicate a massive conspiracy but you haven't got a factual leg to stand on. The warming is real. We are causing it.
rugbyguy59 2 years ago
@rugbyguy59 Alright well then if the warming is real and you stand by the theory, then i will send you my carbon tax bills once i recieve them. And since you are such an educated scientist im sure you wont have a problem saving the world
billy4every1 2 years ago
I'll pay your bills as long as you don't use anything that requires carbon based energy. Otherwise you do the damage you pay the bill. Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out what is really happening doesn't mean you aren't responsible for your own actions.
rugbyguy59 2 years ago
@rugbyguy59 Haha, well that pretty much is impossible cause of the fact that i BREATH OUT CO2. The fact is that you dont know what the hell your talking about because you base your bias views on government handled sources that can be classified and forged. There are 30,000 SCIENTISTS opposing al gores theory, are you saying all the proffesionals are conspiracy theorists. Get your grade 9 science straight asshole
billy4every1 2 years ago
The CO2 you breath out is part of the natural carbon cycle. It isn't a problem. It's the fossil fuels.
Last time I checked the 30,000 scientists were mostly undergrads and dead people. How come every major national scientific organization in the world accepts AGW? 90 to 95% of scientists accept AGW, too. Your 30,000 scientists are minor characters.
rugbyguy59 2 years ago
@rugbyguy59, what you have to ask yourself is who funds these national scientific organizations you speak of? One big donor is, oh let me see, GOVERNMENT. If these organizations don't play ball and support whatever agenda the government is pushing, then guess what? No grants, no subsidies, no money honey.
Who owns the government? International bankers. The elite. Rockefellars. Rothchilds, and other assorted evil control freaks. Global carbon tax. What better way to increase their power?
BRYAN351 2 years ago
@BRYAN351 Who funds the skeptics? Some get their money from the very same governments and others get it directly from big coal and oil.
If I'm comfortably in control of the world as you say then why do I fund a group of scientists who are telling everyone that we have to change the basis of the economic system? Your conspiracy doesn't make any sense.
If you paid attention to this issue you'd know scientists have led the agenda not govern