It was not a deliberate hoax, but the fact is that once they abandon the scientific method, they can no longer call themselves scientists.
No-one can predict the temperature years in advance; they made models which naturally, gave the results which they programmed in. The models show just a few out of billions of posssible futures
CO2 is at 390ppm this almost a historic low when you look back over the Earth's history. 500 million years ago it was 7,000ppm
Al Gore owns at least 5 different mansions. most of this wealth he gained after his movie came out. anyone who comes out against this has been bullied,
You have to be completely delusional to think we can keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and nothing will happen from it. The oceans are already feeling the effects of high CO2 levels, which is another large nail in the coffin of sea life being forced into extinction by humankind. Ball will be duly noted in history as one of the many 'reality disconnects' that worked tirelessly to cloud and distort the critical issues of AGW. What a disgraceful legacy.
@Ivor7777777 "We have to get rid of the medival warm period!!! That says it all."---
Why have the climate scient.. *ahem* climategate conspirers published all the research papers on the MWP when their intention was to "get rid" of the MWP?
@FantasticBob7000 I mistook what Maluron stated for something else. My apologies to them. As for the email, I find it weird that people think that's what was stated when the most up-to-date versions of the hockey stick graph show a medieval warm period.
@FantasticBob7000 The original was posted a very very long time ago. It has been modified numerous times I'm sure. The most recent one shows a definite medieval warm period and little ice age. go to Google, type in 'hockey stick graph' and click on the New Scientist link.
@WaxItYourself I know they modified the original it to remove the MWP and LIA but it's interesting to hear they added it back in. The whole fiasco is a public joke at this point.
@FantasticBob7000 The original was the first attempt at a reconstruction of the temperature record of the Northern Hemisphere in 1999 or near there. If you look at the gray area in the graph that shows the uncertainty. Temperatures, including the MWP, fall within this range. Later reconstructions, as outlined on New Scientist, show pretty much the same thing. The instrumental record being the last section showing that current temperature is warmer.
@WaxItYourself I'm familiar with the graph and the manipulation of the combined data. I just didn't know they had modified it yet again to reinsert the MWP and LIA.
@FantasticBob7000 There was no 'manipulation' of data. If you are familiar with the graph you would know that the MWP falls within the range of uncertainty. You have to realize this was the first attempt at reconstructing temperature of the northern hemisphere. As new data comes in, science advances. That is what has occurred in this place. Read the New Scientists article and you'll get a better understanding. More proxies were used in future reconstructions.
@WaxItYourself What was the first attempt, the original hockey stick or the later iterations? The MWP and LIA were included in the original. Processing data such as filtering and smoothing of curves is manipulation, sometimes legitimate sometimes not. Removing proxy data for some but not all the graph, etc.
Most GW alarmists don't base their support on understanding of the science and you don't seem an exception.
@FantasticBob7000 The original was the first attempt. Measurements show that there is more energy within the tropopause at the 15um band. (Griggs, 2006; Wang, 2009), human emissions at over 30gt/y (Friedlingstein, 2010) are greater than atmospheric increase at about 15.8gt/y (Scripps data) and ocean absorption is compensating (Henry's Law and Le Chatelier's Principal; Doney, 2009). For someone who does not understand the science I certainly do pay attention to it quite a bit.
@WaxItYourself You're a clown. I question your understanding and you respond with irrelevant science babble to try to prove you know what you're supporting. The tropopause is irrelevant to the hockey stick since the proxy and measured data are surface data. Human emissions are irrelevant since the curve represents an effect (temperatures) and not a cause. But it sure sounds "scientific" to rattle off some of those $10 words.
You're making a fool of yourself with copy/paste from science texts.
@FantasticBob7000 I mean the troposphere not the tropopause. Explain to me then Mr Science guy how an increase in tropospheric energy does not cause more warming. Human emissions ARE relevant. You are disregarding what I stated regarding Le Chatelier's Principal. You are on of those people who disregards the science and cherry picks the data to support his belief and you call me a clown lol then you accuse me of using copy/paste. Very funny.
@WaxItYourself As you undoubtedly must have noticed, I didn't say the tropopause is irrelevant to warming. I said the tropopause is irrelevant to the hockey stick graph which is based on proxy and measured surface temperatures. Trees and ice core samples aren't found in the tropopause or in the troposphere, nor were the measurements starting in the 1800's taken at those altitudes.
This is a very stimulating discussion we're having.
@FantasticBob7000 You do what what the troposphere is do you not? The troposphere consists of the lower atmosphere. Humans exist in the troposphere. the troposphere is the lowest portion of the Earth's atmosphere. the tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. I mistyped tropopause in the first post when I meant troposphere.
@WaxItYourself The question is why would you make a copy/paste reference to the current tropopause and then correct yourself to the troposphere, as they both reach up to high altitudes, when discussing the hockey stick that is based on surface data.
You are obviously committed to supporting the GW alarmism and unlikely to be influenced by reason but here is something you might learn from watch?v=i1CR0v7dwXU&feature=related
I don't mean to seem rude but this is a waste of my time at this point.
@WaxItYourself The question is why would you make a copy/paste reference to the current tropopause and then correct yourself to the troposphere, as they both reach up to high altitudes, when discussing the hockey stick that is based on surface data.
You are obviously committed to supporting the GW alarmism and unlikely to be influenced by reason but here is something you might learn from watch?v=i1CR0v7dwXU&feature=related
I don't mean to seem rude but this is a waste of my time at this point.
@FantasticBob7000 And just so you know the tropopause Is relevant to warming as that is the point at which measurements are made regarding climate sensitivity and the Earth's energy imbalance. Historic temperatures, such as the MWP which was known to be mainly caused by variations in solar input, have nothing to do with the cause of the current warming. Solar variability has actually fallen for 3 decades while warming has continued.
Tim Ball is not an expert on climate change. He only produced three papers from which two refer to the climate: "Climate Change in Central Canada" (1972) and "Historical Evidence and Climatic Implications of a Shift in the Boreal Forest Tundra Transition in Central Canada" (1987). Both articles refer to local climate in Canada, but no global climate. Unlike he suggested, he never was a professor of climatology, but taught geography (including some basics on the climate) at the uni Winnipeg.
read this from the BBC - Global warming since 1995 'now significant' 10th June 2011
or this "In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998." WMO 2011
Tim Ball, you need to stop lying and spreading crap. The "climategate" fake scandal has been examined and found wanting by so many independent reviews it's not funny.
Why does anyone listen to this discredited attention seeker who is endangering our future?
@topologyrob you should open your ears and eyes a little bit better. the e-mails pointed out clearly the efforts to "segregate" climate skepticism from scientific journals, by intimidating the editors of those journals. that's not science. its religion.
"the e-mails pointed out clearly the efforts to 'segregate' climate skepticism from scientific journals, by intimidating the editors of those journals. that's not science. its religion. "
- BULLSHIT.
that type of thing was not present anywhere in emails and you clearly dont even know what a religion is.
P.S. anyone who thinks you can only understand climate if you specialize in academic climatology is a moron. Climatology is a GENERALIST discipline, and you can't have a clear picture of it without understanding the role of the sun (which computer climate modeling does not include as an input), oceans, and everything in between. Climate science would only be honest if they search for a null hypothesis instead of banking on confirmation bias for funding.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is caused by human increases in fossil fuel CO2 PPM from 300 PPM for the last 800,000 years at least to the industrial revolution, to 390 PPM now.
2/24/11 A new investigation into the 'Climategate' controversy has exonerated U.S. scientists of any wrongdoing. The probe was conducted by the U.S. Commerce Department's inspector general at the request of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
"In our review...we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures."
FRAUD IS FRAUD...! Thay have been court red handed..! No matter What thay say ..! or even pay some one to clean up there mess..! WOULD BE GOOD TO SWITCH ON THE 6 O CLOCK NEWS AND SEE THEM ALL IN HAND CUFFS AND AWAITING TRIAL..!
Antarctic glacier mission seeks global climate clues
.
The breaking off of a Luxembourg-sized iceberg in Antarctica could affect ocean circulation patterns and be a harbinger of changes to come from global warming, scientists on a mission to the frozen continent say.
Considering how big Antarctica is, and how much re-freezing occurs, a Luxembourg-sized iceburg would be NOTHING, and a skeptical (i.e. scientific) approach to considering your claim is warranted.
Why is it there are still blinded people? Dr. Tim Ball is a climatologist, if you want to find out you should listen or check "red ice radio" here at You tube . He is a Climatologist, Geophysicist etc.. or Google his name "you blinded" who loves Al Gore, a Politician who doesn't have any background whatsoever. You people are being indoctrinated by politician, not by scientist! Blinded!!!!
Regarding the stolen email paragraph you quoted. Trenberth was talking about short time periods like 10 years.
"Planned adaptation to climate change requires information about what is happening and why. While a long-term trend is for global warming, short-term periods of cooling can occur and have physical causes associated with natural variability. However, such natural variability means that energy is rearranged or changed within the climate system, and should be traceable."
The hockey stick graph of Mann's was not perfect. No one says so. Better statistical methods are used now. However, it has been reconstructed numerous times by other climate scientists, using the same data, with no appreciable difference. The hockey stick's validity has been affirmed by the National Academy of Science and others.
@Damnaam You're right that the climategate campaign has been proven as fraud - the scientists have been exonerated many times, and the science is more solid than ever.
@topologyrob Sorry bud, there may have been some controversy over the meaning of the "Hide the decline" statement, but the proof is in the code of the computer models that create a predetermined outcome.
@DeathMetalPatriot I've read the code comments - they don't mean what some contrarians have been saying. This is particularly interesting to me, as I once worked in a very related field (database integrity and repair) - what some people seem to be badly misunderstanding is the meaning of "data integrity". The codes and comments don't make any dint on the quality of the science. And if they did, that would be one pebble in a mountain of other evidence. The truth is clear - AGW is real.
@topologyrob Well I don't think it is, there is NO scientific consensus, in fact there is a petition circulating with 31000 scientists disagree with the theory of man made global warming, in fact according to Lord Christopher Monkton has ran the numbers, and he says their has been no real warming for over 10 years. What about the medieval warming period? Are you telling me now that the Vikings didn't inhabit Greenland, that is covered in ice today?
"Well I don't think it is, there is NO scientific consensus"
- incorrect, there is scientific consensus that man-made global warming is occurring. this is demonstrated by the joint statement from every national academy of science ON EARTH.
"in fact there is a petition circulating with 31000 scientists disagree with the theory"
- less than 1% of the said signatories are in a field even related to climate change.
@types10000 Well sorry but all those institutions are infiltrated by psychotic marxists like yourself, who want to use "global warming" as pretext to regulate every aspect our lives! How come temperatures have leveled off or gone down across the world? What about the medieval warm period? Are you saying the Vikings didn't settle Greenland? Sorry but you are the one being stupid. As for climategate the investigation was a fraud, the investigators were associated with the accused!
"How come temperatures have leveled off or gone down across the world?"
they havnt 'leveled off' we are in the middle of a warming trend. That being said, temperature is affected by many different factors, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is ONE of them. the warming effects of atmospheric CO2 have been demonstrated through experimentation and are readily available to you through the peer reviewed literature.
what exactly do you think will happen if we add more?
"Are you saying the Vikings didn't settle Greenland? Sorry but you are the one being stupid"
- incorrect your the stupid one; for trying to project your strawman argument about greenland onto me.
"As for climategate the investigation was a fraud..."
- incorrect again, you are once again trying to claim a conspiracy because you dont like the truth. there have been in excess of 4 formal inquieries each undertaken by an external (and independent) institutions.
@types10000 Well I am not going to spend much time debating you because I have better things to do, I realize you are a mighty youtube warrior, but I really don't care that much about proving you wrong. I have actually interviewed Dr. Tim Ball, and he is an excellent dude, I wish I could say the same for you. I have heard the excuses for the "hide the decline" I don't know why your side is so concerned with the word "trick" when the "hide the decline" much more damning.
"I have heard the excuses for the 'hide the decline' I don't know why your side is so concerned with the word trick when the 'hide the decline' much more damning."
a). you've just admitted that it has already been explained to you what they actually mean
b). you need to invoke an international communist conspiracy to explain why the 4+ inquiries didnt pick up on it.
@types10000 Why the nerd rage against Canadians? I see you are some kid from Australia, big deal, you really are showing your hand as some bitter little leftist activist. I guess your angry people aren't buying your human hating propaganda anymore, sorry no carbon taxes here. You realize CO2 is only around 4% of all greenhouse gasses? And that temperatures corralate more with the activities of the sun than they do with CO2. The MBH98 graph (the hockey stick graph) has been debunked as well
- because global warming denial is a phenomena that primarily takes place in the US, it flies in the face of science is propagated by large segments of the media who refuse to acknowledge the scientific consensus and make allegations of controversy where there is none eg. climategate.
your views lead me to believe the stupidity is spreading.
"you really are showing your hand as some bitter little leftist activist. I guess your angry people aren't buying your human hating propaganda anymore"
- baseless assertion, the fact i can identify logical flaws in your bullshit claims doesnt make me a leftist.
"You realize CO2 is only around 4% of all greenhouse gasses?"
- Yes, however that says nothing about it's overall warming effect which is derived primarily from how it creates a feedback loop with water vapor (the most numerous and significant greenhouse gas)
"And that temperatures corralate more with the activities of the sun than they do with CO2"
- the fact the sun is a bigger factor doesnt negate how big of a factor CO2 is.
@types10000 As far as climategate goes I am much more concerned about how they discuss getting scientists who disagree with them blackballed. What about the IPCC, they are supposed to be the worlds leading body and they are not even aloud to look at any other factors to climate than man made ones, it's in their terms of reference. Speaking of the IPCC according to Richard Linzen who was actually the IPCC's 3rd report many of the members are bureaucrats and politicians not scientists.
"As far as climategate goes I am much more concerned about how they discuss getting scientists who disagree with them blackballed."
- this is a myth. in reality you are hired and allocated grant money to research a particular topic, you only get black listed if you abuse the grant money for something other than it's intended purpose.
"What about the IPCC...not even aloud to look at any other factors to climate than man made ones"
@types10000 "Propaganda"? Well I am just quoting Dr. Ball, in my interview with him. You see he has actually worked in the field of climate research for over 30 years and has served on commissions of enquiry and knows how they work, he has also received death threats over his work. As far as the "Hide the decline" goes, what I heard was an excuse as to what it might have meant, I don't know if it is true or not. If it is true, than why don't the tree rings work after 1960?
@types10000 "yes, your appealing to authority (logical fallacy) "
Excuse me??? You just did the same thing by telling me that all the major institutions believe in AGW So piss off, I have had my fill of your intellectual dishonesty you pissy little twerp. I have tried to be civil, but have had my fill! I really have better things to than argue with a 19 year old know it all kid who really doesn't know shit. I'm done.
@types10000 Sorry but there is still not a consensus, just because the heads of some specific group puts out a statement saying there is doesn't change the fact that many scientists out there don't agree, that is not a consensus.
"doesn't change the fact that many scientists out there don't agree, that is not a consensus."
- incorrect, whilst there maybe a large number of scientists in UNRELATED FIELDS such as psychology.etc when you actually examine the number from the relevant fields there hardly any (virtually none)
eg. in the 31,000 scientist petition against global warming, less than 1% were from fields that had anything to due with examination of climate
"Speaking of the IPCC according to Richard Linzen who was actually the IPCC's 3rd report many of the members are bureaucrats and politicians not scientists."
- IPCC arnt the ones doing the research! all they do is compile and explain the research in a manner that the public can understand, they work with scientists and their reports have been consistent with the scientific concensus
@types10000 I also notice that you can't have a civil discussion about the facts, instead you become angry and hurl insults, not the sign of a strong position if you ask me...
"I also notice that you can't have a civil discussion about the facts,
- i'm not the one who's inventing conspiracy theories because i cant handle reality.
"instead you become angry and hurl insults, not the sign of a strong position if you ask me..."
- incorrect, all i have done is make an accurate assessment a phenomena that is almost exclusively US based (denial of anthropogenic global warming) seeping into surrounding nations.
Yes we know the Daily Mail printed that lie, and other conservative papers and blogs picked up the story. How does that make it true? Did you even read what I said? What Jones said was - there is too much statistical noise and it's too short a time period (15 years) to be 95% statistically significant. Shift the time period by one year and it is 95% statistically significant. 93% statistically significant isn't good enough?
Tim Ball recently gave a presentation at the University of Victoria's Young Conservative Club. Unfortunately for Ball, a group of graduate students in climate science were in the audience, which I'm sure was not the uniformly receptive audience Ball expected. These students had the facts necessary to debunk the lies that Ball presented as scientific truth.
desmogblog article - "Tim Ball in Concert: Battered by the Facts"
@sailRichard WOW what a one sided made for AGW'ers to get more brainwashed. We have no where the computering power to model climate as it is now very few things are included. Garbage in = garbage out
@sailRichard Agreed, I was one of the graduate students present last spring when he at Uvic. To give some context, there was a reason he had to be hosted in the student union building by a conservative student club (no self respecting science faculty or prof would host this clown). It was good for a laugh to listen to his mis-information. Even funner was listening to him talk in circles when confronted by some informed graduate students.
I would advise taking any argument you have to Skeptical Science website, where you can learn why the arguments don't hold water. They cover them all.
The real skeptics are the scientists themselves. how do you think science works? There is constant questioning conclusions, rechecking data, challenging each other's work, the peer review process, etc. That doesn't happen with skeptics. They cling to longt ago debunked claims, religiously
westcoast Some of the journals that skeptics have published in, have regretted it. Others are just not very credible journals.
McIntyre and McKitrick are politically motivated fossil and mining industry hacks. They have a history of misrepresenting and distorting the accepted science. They are working with Rep Joe (apologise to BP) Barton (R Texas), the House member who receives the most political contributions from fossil fuel industries.
@sailRichard That's ad hominem stuff. The fossil fuel industry is poised to make money out of the carbon scam. McIntyre published precise arguments outlining the statistical flaws in the 'Hockey Stick' graph from Michael Mann.
@westcoast1965 It's not ad hominem in the bit where there are allegations that McIntyre and McKitrick have a history of distorting data (which is just a plain fact, easily substantiated).
westcoast1965 You are just spreading a lie about Phil Jones. It is flat out not true. He never said no warming for 15 years. He said too short a time period, to achieve 95% statistical certainty of the upward trend over 15 years. It was actually 92-93%. So that means there is a 7-8% chance the trend is not valid.
Then some of the media and skeptic blogs twisted what he said into a lie.
@westcoast1965 This email is so often and so badly misunderstood. Read some commentary from climate scientists on why this has no bad bearing at all on the integrity of the scientists or on the science.
Tim Ball has a PhD in Geography. Typically, those who can't handle the truth like to do a drive by 'ad hominem' attack on him instead of addressing his arguments. Please note that he need not produce countervailing data to reveal lies/deficiencies or flaws in the arguments he is attacking. Big Oil by the way, has a lot of money invested in the carbon market trading scam. Also, is Al Gore a climatologist? Is Rajenda Pachauri a climatologist? Manmade global warming has rubbish.
@westcoast1965 your absolutely correct. Let me go ahead and throw away millions of data points, in thousands of scientific journals, in a variety of scientific fields of study from the past 30 years because you say global warming is rubbish and we should not try to fix the issue. Dang, you should run for prime minister or president of the country you are from.
@arp76 Millions of data points? So what? How many valid data sets are there that support the bulk of the AGW scam? There are 4. One is controlled by the CRU at East Anglia. You know.. the guys that wouldn't share their data.. fixed the results and then 'lost' it? You need to investigate this with a little more rigor my friend. It's not 'me' saying this, there's a lot of people including scientists questioning this.
I took it on faith like you... until I looked into it. Do likewise.
@westcoast1965 actually there was no scam. lol, have you read the email?
Trick is a scientific term -- its used in computational models all of the time for chemistry or computer science or biology. It doesn't mean fraudulent. As for the "decline", that deals with the decline in responsiveness of tree rings to climate not actual temperature.
I read scientific literature daily, do you? I read Science, Nature, American Meteorological journals...what do you read?
@arp76 'Trick' is not a scientific term... it's colloquial. That fatuous response seems to be standard for all those trying to defend the scientific fraud being perpetrated. And yes I have read the emails. Did you read the ones that reveal an obvious attempt to subvert the peer review process? Or to resist disclosing the data for replication? You may read journals but you need to review the basic tenets of science which rely on objectivity, verification and transparency.
@arp76 We'll have to agree to disagree. And you're avoiding the question. If you had read the emails you'd know that they openly discussed ousting editors for journals that weren't ideologically aligned. I'll take Lindzen says at face value. He's eminently qualified. I don't listen to Glenn Beck but I do listen to Christopher Monkton.
@westcoast1965 oh and in case you were wondering...if Trenberth was trying to cover up a conspiracy with Jones, why did he provide a URL to the paper he wrote? Check it out, its called "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's Global energy" it was published in 2009.
@arp76 Why did Jones 'lose' his data? Why did he leave emails indicating that colleagues should destroy it rather than have it verified by others? I've read the emails - there are comments from frustrated programmers referring to 'fudge factor's. Is that a scientific term too? Have you read what Richard Linzen has to say on the subject? The 'science' is far from settled. What pulled us out of the last ice age? Does the sun have anything to do with climate? Jones et al HID THEIR DATA.
@westcoast1965 yes I have heard of 'Richard Lindzen' (with a d). He's continued to be debunked. His papers are refuted all of the time & he's lied to newsweek - I dont trust his work at all.
Of course the sun has to deal with global warming, it is one of many factors. the leading factor however is man made CO2.
you need to read some scientific journals and stop listening to Glenn Beck
@arp76 Daily Mail Feb 14, 2010: "Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
@westcoast1965 thats a lie, reference the BBC Q&A Feb 13, 2010, Jones answers the following qt: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
"I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human "
@arp76 Seasons greetings.. It's NOT a lie. If you want.. go look it up yourself. Daily Mail, February 14, 2010
"Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
And read precisely what you wrote. "100 % the climate has warmed". I agree. It has - nobody disputes that. We've been in a general warming trend for 300 years.. long before any industrial activity. It's the last 15 years there's been no significant warming. Look it up my friend.
@westcoast1965 That's just an argument from authority. His evidence is nowhere to be found, and that's what counts. I couldn't care less if he has ten PhDs - where's his evidence?
This video is a lie. Tim Ball was never a climate scientist. We now know what they emails said and how they were wrong amongst the THOUSANDS of emails that showed correct data. Notice that Mr. Ball offers no real data to refute the current science. He's an idiot. Not only that, he's bought and paid for by big oil, big coal and nuclear power. Look it up.
Oh look, global warming! Another conspiracy made by liberal nuts who want to increase socialism (money stealing). They have done it with pollution, do not let these tree huggers get away with increasing the government size already.
"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today and were sustained at those levels was 15 to 20 million years ago when global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,"Aradhna Tripati,UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences.
@markjohnconley Many universities house climatology in their geography department. His doctoral thesis was on climate change. Either way, by focusing on his credentials I assume you couldn't find fault with what he actually has to say? Attack the message, not the messenger.
@nazlfrag, the video commences with an introduction of “the retired climatologist” and a subtitle states “historical climatologist”.I am correcting the error, that is not “attacking the messenger”.
His doctorate was in historical geography NOT climatology, so refer to him as the “retired historical geographer”.
He was Professor of Geography for 8 years at U.ofWinn. a fact Timothy Ball which he confirmed in his own Statement of Claim in a pending lawsuit. I couldn't get past the intro!
Central planning and control doesn't work. A Central planning and control example is the Euro zone. It wont make it, but, the UN goons are trying to hang on to their failed ideas.
US rejected central planning and became the most successful economy in history. US embraces socialization and is becoming stagnant and is beginning to fail. China embraces central planning and fails for centuries. China embraces free markets and succeeds like the US used to.
@cooperbry : Well for the moment so far I know the US isn't the most successful economy... otherwise you would not hear them complain all the time...
How is the deficit coming along? How is the debt? how is the employment? oh and how is your industrial sector? gone?!? how is your health care coverage?
@cooperbry : ACTUALLY... Germany with a more planned industrial sector and voluntarist policies is doing by far better than the US now (growth rate between 3 and 4% of the GDP).
Central planning has alllowed China to create a "rare earth" integrated sector which the US has not managed to...
Central planning in a MIXED ECONOMY is still part of China and is doing rather well for them - unlike the US they do not only have a "laissez-faire" capitalism.
@cooperbry : Well guys, do what you want... I am quite sure you will fail at it anyway.
When your government however reduced the market oversight it created problems - for which you pay the price - but worse, for which other countrys have to pay for the mess created by the US (what a surprise)...
So if you could become totally isolationist and just play in your corner and withdraw from all international trade and markets, it would be highly appreciated.
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010: tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
If the science behind the theory is so strong, why do the world's top scientists, and the UN, corrupt the scientific method to promote the theory?
Forget everything else about this scandal. Just think about scientists who forbid dissenting research from being published then claim that the number of pro research publications helps prove their theory.
@jackdenver60 : There isn't corruption of science... the procedure of adding instrumental temperature record to tree rings as proxy was well known and published. Discovering something you previously ignored doesn't make it a lie.
Additionally, if I write in a private email "fuck the us", will somebody hack my email and make it a headline "this guy has intercourse with the whole United States"? that is how ridiculous it id.
Nobody knows the exact mechanisms on climate to know whats going to happen. We all have our theories. Let alone to make any earth changing decisions about climate policy. Politicians need to be patient and very careful. Only mother nature knows. We are but children.
Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the UK, the results: "The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by the emails and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit.".
@RadicalNotion There are fundamental flaws in the 'other planets are warming' argument. Not all planets in the solar system are warming (Uranus is cooling.), The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950 and in fact has shown a slight cooling trend in recent decades.
Climate news climate deniers don't want anyone to see...
.
Political spin surrounds energy bill
.
Motorists driving towards Charleston on Interstate 64 are greeted by what many would view as an unwelcome sight: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's face.
.
The advertisement, from a diverse coalition, warns that Iran reaps millions in oil profits every day Congress delays passage of an energy bill.
"Skepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection."
@cristop5 Another panel of eminent global climatologists has concluded scientists whose e-mails were hacked last year had not as critics alleged, distorted scientific evidence to prove global warming was occurring and Humans were primarily responsible. Like earlier panels convened by Britain’s Royal Society and the House of Commons, reaching essentially the same verdict. proving these attacks on climate science are not based on science, they’re based on naivety and political manipulation.
@danielnz1 "Another panel of eminent global climatologists has concluded scientists whose e-mails were hacked last year had not ...distorted scientific evidence..."
@danielnz1 Political motivation? Hmmm? And cap and trade, agenda 21 are not political motivation? Look it is a scam plain and simple. It's over they can hang up the Global War..... Oops now it's climate change bullshit!
@danielnz1 The only 'attack on climate science' came from the corrupt activities and illegal FOI obstruction practised by Phil Jones and his collegues at CRU. Subsequent attempts to whitewash the CRU and excuse their dodgey practises only serves to further tarnish the reputation of climate science and scientists in general.
@cristop5 The Oxburgh & Muir inquiries were set up by UEA & stacked with vested interests. No suprise they found everything was tickety-boo. Oxburgh has subsequently admitted that his 5-page 'Science Assessment' did not actually assess the science - and the CRU papers they reviewed were selected & approved by UEA & CRU director Phil Jones. No inquiries interviewed the skeptical scientists targeted in the emails. None checked the email archive nor the illegal "delete all emails" requests.
@MMGWsceptic Had the UEA NOT set up inquiries you would have been outraged. But when they do you are still put out! But don't worry, they were independent.
1.House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. This consists of MPs and unrelated to the UEA.
2. Scientific Appraisal Panel. Chosen on advice from the Royal Society. No panelists were associated with the UEA.
3. Independent Climate Change Email Review. Again this has no links to the UEA, Climatic Research Unit, or the IPCC.
@cristop5 2: Oxburgh's got numerous financial interests in climate fear promotion - not to mention other panellists who co-authored papers with the accused. Try googling 'kelly climate audit' for some unpublished comments from the panel's electronics prof. He wa'n't too impressed - even with Phil Jones' hand picked papers.
3) The Muir report was mostly written by Geoffrey Boulton - an IPCC alarmist who worked at UEA for 18 years LOL - he was the only one who questioned Phil Jones.
@MMGWsceptic Boulton worked at UEA from 1968 - 1980, then had a part-time appointment from 1980 - 1986, whilst working primarily in the University of Amsterdam. Since then, he had no contact with the UEA or the CRU.
So your hypothesis is: "Boulton's link to the UEA that ended 24 yrs left him so dedicated to the university that he could not criticize the CRU. Furthermore he was able to persuade the other panelists to ignore all wrongdoing."
@cristop5 Russell said his Team had “no prejudicial interest in climate change & climate science” & “no professional contact with UEA or CRU”.
However, not only did Boulton work at UEA for 18 years, but in Oct 2009 he even presented a “Facing Up to Climate Change” conference with presenters from CRU!! Oh, and 10 of Boulton's years at UEA overlapped with Phil Jones!
Do you think Geoff questioned Phil thoroughly? I bet they just had a nice chat about the good old days.
@MMGWsceptic "Oxburgh has subsequently admitted that his 5-page 'Science Assessment' did not actually assess the science.."
"subsequently"!?
No. Had you read the report itself you would have seen that their brief "...was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct. Rather it was asked to come to a view on the integrity of the Unit’s research.."
And they found that was OK.
The science itself will always be subject to ongoing evaluation.
@cristop5 Numerous press releases prior to Oxburgh said his inquiry would be a SCIENCE APPRAISAL. For this reason the HoC and Muir inquiries specifically excused themselves from wider questions about the science BECAUSE it was Oxburgh's job to look at the science. After Oxburgh published, HoC inquiry chairman Phil Willis "couldn't believe" UEAs “sleight of hand“ in the sneeky way they changed their inquiry from 'science' to 'scientist' appraisal. I believe this is what CRU/UEA call a 'trick".
@MMGWsceptic The SAP inquiry looked at the integrity of the science, not the quality. Why? Because it was the integrity (falsifying data etc) that was under attack by the hacker spin doctors.
Willis has an unrealistic notion of what an inquiry can deliver if he thinks it could somehow guage the "quality" of scientific research. I repeat, the science itself will always be subject to ongoing evaluation. There is no point at which science suddenly becomes "good enough" or "correct".
Royal Soc: "we have decided on .. an external reappraisal of the SCIENCE ITSELF" (Oxburgh review)
Muir: "Our review’s remit does not invite it to re-appraise the scientific work of CRU. That re-appraisal is being done by UEA, with the assistance of the RS" (Oxburgh review)
Acton: "As for the science itself... I will announce the chair of a panel to reassess the science (Oxburgh) & make sure there's nothing wrong"
Oxburgh: "science was not the subject of our study”
Corruption of Science; Yes, it is worse than anyone imagined.
I have discovered a new instance of this corruption.
Papers by Svensmark, Friis-Christienson, Shaviv and Veitzer have shown that a link may exist between cosmic rays and climate on Earth.
In an attempt to discredit this new theory, papers have been financed by NASA.
One, by Overholt, Melott, and Pohl even goes so far as move the Milky Way's spiral arms to discredit it!
Melott had NASA grant NNX09AM85G.
Pohl had NASA grant NAG5-13559.
1000frolly 1 week ago
I just added this to my favs list.
I can't wait until the head's begin to roll!
Thank you for this video upload!
It's really pathetic when scientists, who attack religion so violently, get together to perpetrate a hoax of this magnitude.
What I have wondered is how can scientists predict the temps in 50 years, yet they can't do the same for next month?
Didn't ice core samples show higher levels of co2 back millions of years ago, than now? And that's why tree's and insects were bigger?
AzBirdDog 3 weeks ago
@AzBirdDog
Hope lots of heads do roll.
It was not a deliberate hoax, but the fact is that once they abandon the scientific method, they can no longer call themselves scientists.
No-one can predict the temperature years in advance; they made models which naturally, gave the results which they programmed in. The models show just a few out of billions of posssible futures
CO2 is at 390ppm this almost a historic low when you look back over the Earth's history. 500 million years ago it was 7,000ppm
1000frolly 1 week ago
its the sun stupid. we do not control the weather
lunabranwen 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lunabranwen Idiot denier can't tell the difference between weather and climate. LOL.
bubbah 2 months ago
Al Gore owns at least 5 different mansions. most of this wealth he gained after his movie came out. anyone who comes out against this has been bullied,
lunabranwen 3 months ago
Tim ball is a hack. He's not a "climatology expert"
/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0&feature=related
Starting @ 05:31
A86 4 months ago
Rothchild?
JuanVoyce 4 months ago
You have to be completely delusional to think we can keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and nothing will happen from it. The oceans are already feeling the effects of high CO2 levels, which is another large nail in the coffin of sea life being forced into extinction by humankind. Ball will be duly noted in history as one of the many 'reality disconnects' that worked tirelessly to cloud and distort the critical issues of AGW. What a disgraceful legacy.
frededison 6 months ago
Dr Tim Ball, retired climatologist? Ha, I suggest you do some homework on this guy's credentials.He also used to be the the freaking Easter Bunny!
When will Dr. Ball comment on the News Corp. hacking methods? Just thought I'd ask? Hahahaha!
dwolfcoach 6 months ago
We have to get rid of the medival warm period!!!
That says it all.
Have a look at the great global warming scandal
Ivor7777777 6 months ago
@Ivor7777777 "We have to get rid of the medival warm period!!! That says it all."---
Why have the climate scient.. *ahem* climategate conspirers published all the research papers on the MWP when their intention was to "get rid" of the MWP?
MaluronLurette 6 months ago
@MaluronLurette There was never anything in the emails stating anything about having to get rid of the MWP. Stop paying attention to denial blogs.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself He didn't say it was in the climategate emails he said it was in a personal email to him.
FantasticBob7000 4 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 I mistook what Maluron stated for something else. My apologies to them. As for the email, I find it weird that people think that's what was stated when the most up-to-date versions of the hockey stick graph show a medieval warm period.
WaxItYourself 4 months ago
@WaxItYourself Did they modify it again?
FantasticBob7000 4 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 The original was posted a very very long time ago. It has been modified numerous times I'm sure. The most recent one shows a definite medieval warm period and little ice age. go to Google, type in 'hockey stick graph' and click on the New Scientist link.
WaxItYourself 4 months ago
@WaxItYourself I know they modified the original it to remove the MWP and LIA but it's interesting to hear they added it back in. The whole fiasco is a public joke at this point.
FantasticBob7000 4 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 The original was the first attempt at a reconstruction of the temperature record of the Northern Hemisphere in 1999 or near there. If you look at the gray area in the graph that shows the uncertainty. Temperatures, including the MWP, fall within this range. Later reconstructions, as outlined on New Scientist, show pretty much the same thing. The instrumental record being the last section showing that current temperature is warmer.
WaxItYourself 4 months ago
@WaxItYourself I'm familiar with the graph and the manipulation of the combined data. I just didn't know they had modified it yet again to reinsert the MWP and LIA.
FantasticBob7000 4 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 There was no 'manipulation' of data. If you are familiar with the graph you would know that the MWP falls within the range of uncertainty. You have to realize this was the first attempt at reconstructing temperature of the northern hemisphere. As new data comes in, science advances. That is what has occurred in this place. Read the New Scientists article and you'll get a better understanding. More proxies were used in future reconstructions.
WaxItYourself 4 months ago
@WaxItYourself What was the first attempt, the original hockey stick or the later iterations? The MWP and LIA were included in the original. Processing data such as filtering and smoothing of curves is manipulation, sometimes legitimate sometimes not. Removing proxy data for some but not all the graph, etc.
Most GW alarmists don't base their support on understanding of the science and you don't seem an exception.
FantasticBob7000 4 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 The original was the first attempt. Measurements show that there is more energy within the tropopause at the 15um band. (Griggs, 2006; Wang, 2009), human emissions at over 30gt/y (Friedlingstein, 2010) are greater than atmospheric increase at about 15.8gt/y (Scripps data) and ocean absorption is compensating (Henry's Law and Le Chatelier's Principal; Doney, 2009). For someone who does not understand the science I certainly do pay attention to it quite a bit.
WaxItYourself 4 months ago
@WaxItYourself You're a clown. I question your understanding and you respond with irrelevant science babble to try to prove you know what you're supporting. The tropopause is irrelevant to the hockey stick since the proxy and measured data are surface data. Human emissions are irrelevant since the curve represents an effect (temperatures) and not a cause. But it sure sounds "scientific" to rattle off some of those $10 words.
You're making a fool of yourself with copy/paste from science texts.
FantasticBob7000 4 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 I mean the troposphere not the tropopause. Explain to me then Mr Science guy how an increase in tropospheric energy does not cause more warming. Human emissions ARE relevant. You are disregarding what I stated regarding Le Chatelier's Principal. You are on of those people who disregards the science and cherry picks the data to support his belief and you call me a clown lol then you accuse me of using copy/paste. Very funny.
WaxItYourself 4 months ago
@WaxItYourself As you undoubtedly must have noticed, I didn't say the tropopause is irrelevant to warming. I said the tropopause is irrelevant to the hockey stick graph which is based on proxy and measured surface temperatures. Trees and ice core samples aren't found in the tropopause or in the troposphere, nor were the measurements starting in the 1800's taken at those altitudes.
This is a very stimulating discussion we're having.
FantasticBob7000 4 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 You do what what the troposphere is do you not? The troposphere consists of the lower atmosphere. Humans exist in the troposphere. the troposphere is the lowest portion of the Earth's atmosphere. the tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. I mistyped tropopause in the first post when I meant troposphere.
WaxItYourself 4 months ago
@WaxItYourself The question is why would you make a copy/paste reference to the current tropopause and then correct yourself to the troposphere, as they both reach up to high altitudes, when discussing the hockey stick that is based on surface data.
You are obviously committed to supporting the GW alarmism and unlikely to be influenced by reason but here is something you might learn from watch?v=i1CR0v7dwXU&feature=related
I don't mean to seem rude but this is a waste of my time at this point.
FantasticBob7000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WaxItYourself The question is why would you make a copy/paste reference to the current tropopause and then correct yourself to the troposphere, as they both reach up to high altitudes, when discussing the hockey stick that is based on surface data.
You are obviously committed to supporting the GW alarmism and unlikely to be influenced by reason but here is something you might learn from watch?v=i1CR0v7dwXU&feature=related
I don't mean to seem rude but this is a waste of my time at this point.
FantasticBob7000 4 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 And just so you know the tropopause Is relevant to warming as that is the point at which measurements are made regarding climate sensitivity and the Earth's energy imbalance. Historic temperatures, such as the MWP which was known to be mainly caused by variations in solar input, have nothing to do with the cause of the current warming. Solar variability has actually fallen for 3 decades while warming has continued.
WaxItYourself 4 months ago
Tim Ball is not an expert on climate change. He only produced three papers from which two refer to the climate: "Climate Change in Central Canada" (1972) and "Historical Evidence and Climatic Implications of a Shift in the Boreal Forest Tundra Transition in Central Canada" (1987). Both articles refer to local climate in Canada, but no global climate. Unlike he suggested, he never was a professor of climatology, but taught geography (including some basics on the climate) at the uni Winnipeg.
MaluronLurette 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
read this from the BBC - Global warming since 1995 'now significant' 10th June 2011
or this "In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998." WMO 2011
checkyoursources 7 months ago
what did the emails actually say. did they say 'let's fake the results.'
There are more than just one research project.
I do agree that the community on climate change may be quite closed though.
But can you prove the world is cooling Mr Ball, as you claim!?
BittersweetMayhem 8 months ago
Honestly i dunno what this is, i dont believe in man made global warming but this looks like a fake news show or something....
birdyboy12 8 months ago
Tim Ball, you need to stop lying and spreading crap. The "climategate" fake scandal has been examined and found wanting by so many independent reviews it's not funny.
Why does anyone listen to this discredited attention seeker who is endangering our future?
topologyrob 9 months ago
@topologyrob you should open your ears and eyes a little bit better. the e-mails pointed out clearly the efforts to "segregate" climate skepticism from scientific journals, by intimidating the editors of those journals. that's not science. its religion.
JAROSLAVAGINA 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JAROSLAVAGINA
"the e-mails pointed out clearly the efforts to 'segregate' climate skepticism from scientific journals, by intimidating the editors of those journals. that's not science. its religion. "
- BULLSHIT.
that type of thing was not present anywhere in emails and you clearly dont even know what a religion is.
types10000 8 months ago
The Double: "The trouble with science is that it can be perverted." (The Prisoner)
smartverity 9 months ago
@smartverity By shameless people like Tim Ball
topologyrob 9 months ago
P.S. anyone who thinks you can only understand climate if you specialize in academic climatology is a moron. Climatology is a GENERALIST discipline, and you can't have a clear picture of it without understanding the role of the sun (which computer climate modeling does not include as an input), oceans, and everything in between. Climate science would only be honest if they search for a null hypothesis instead of banking on confirmation bias for funding.
phrantek 10 months ago
Anthropogenic Global Warming is caused by human increases in fossil fuel CO2 PPM from 300 PPM for the last 800,000 years at least to the industrial revolution, to 390 PPM now.
qwertypoiu4321 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
New GW News:
Google: climategate investigation clears scientists huffington
2/24/11 A new investigation into the 'Climategate' controversy has exonerated U.S. scientists of any wrongdoing. The probe was conducted by the U.S. Commerce Department's inspector general at the request of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
"In our review...we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures."
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
debunked
loloioi 11 months ago
FRAUD IS FRAUD...! Thay have been court red handed..! No matter What thay say ..! or even pay some one to clean up there mess..! WOULD BE GOOD TO SWITCH ON THE 6 O CLOCK NEWS AND SEE THEM ALL IN HAND CUFFS AND AWAITING TRIAL..!
waynej1407 11 months ago
Science news..
.
Antarctic glacier mission seeks global climate clues
.
The breaking off of a Luxembourg-sized iceberg in Antarctica could affect ocean circulation patterns and be a harbinger of changes to come from global warming, scientists on a mission to the frozen continent say.
.
Reuters
31 January 2011
Nightversionn 11 months ago
@Nightversionn
Considering how big Antarctica is, and how much re-freezing occurs, a Luxembourg-sized iceburg would be NOTHING, and a skeptical (i.e. scientific) approach to considering your claim is warranted.
phrantek 10 months ago
Why is it there are still blinded people? Dr. Tim Ball is a climatologist, if you want to find out you should listen or check "red ice radio" here at You tube . He is a Climatologist, Geophysicist etc.. or Google his name "you blinded" who loves Al Gore, a Politician who doesn't have any background whatsoever. You people are being indoctrinated by politician, not by scientist! Blinded!!!!
Luzcvier 1 year ago
Tim Ball is not a Climatologist. He was a Geography professor at a College that didn't even have a Climatology department.
Joonyk1 1 year ago
Damn James, stop spending all the donations on television screens :-P
Or maybe he got them really cheap from CNN after an election. ^_^
(this is where I say that I know it's a green screen so the youngins don't flame me :-)
truthIsStranger 1 year ago
Regarding the stolen email paragraph you quoted. Trenberth was talking about short time periods like 10 years.
"Planned adaptation to climate change requires information about what is happening and why. While a long-term trend is for global warming, short-term periods of cooling can occur and have physical causes associated with natural variability. However, such natural variability means that energy is rearranged or changed within the climate system, and should be traceable."
Trenberth
sailRichard 1 year ago
Just to be clear, the Daily Mail said he said . It was their words, not Jones'.
They intentionally twisted what he said.
Jones never made the statement "There has been no global warming since 1995".
sailRichard 1 year ago
The hockey stick graph of Mann's was not perfect. No one says so. Better statistical methods are used now. However, it has been reconstructed numerous times by other climate scientists, using the same data, with no appreciable difference. The hockey stick's validity has been affirmed by the National Academy of Science and others.
sailRichard 1 year ago
@sailRichard Absolute nonsense it has been totally proven to be FRAUD. The sooner we get these communists to trial the better for humanity.
Damnaam 11 months ago 2
@Damnaam You're right that the climategate campaign has been proven as fraud - the scientists have been exonerated many times, and the science is more solid than ever.
topologyrob 9 months ago
@topologyrob Sorry bud, there may have been some controversy over the meaning of the "Hide the decline" statement, but the proof is in the code of the computer models that create a predetermined outcome.
DeathMetalPatriot 9 months ago
@DeathMetalPatriot I've read the code comments - they don't mean what some contrarians have been saying. This is particularly interesting to me, as I once worked in a very related field (database integrity and repair) - what some people seem to be badly misunderstanding is the meaning of "data integrity". The codes and comments don't make any dint on the quality of the science. And if they did, that would be one pebble in a mountain of other evidence. The truth is clear - AGW is real.
topologyrob 9 months ago
@topologyrob Well I don't think it is, there is NO scientific consensus, in fact there is a petition circulating with 31000 scientists disagree with the theory of man made global warming, in fact according to Lord Christopher Monkton has ran the numbers, and he says their has been no real warming for over 10 years. What about the medieval warming period? Are you telling me now that the Vikings didn't inhabit Greenland, that is covered in ice today?
DeathMetalPatriot 9 months ago
@DeathMetalPatriot
"Well I don't think it is, there is NO scientific consensus"
- incorrect, there is scientific consensus that man-made global warming is occurring. this is demonstrated by the joint statement from every national academy of science ON EARTH.
"in fact there is a petition circulating with 31000 scientists disagree with the theory"
- less than 1% of the said signatories are in a field even related to climate change.
please research before saying such stupid things
types10000 8 months ago
@types10000 Well sorry but all those institutions are infiltrated by psychotic marxists like yourself, who want to use "global warming" as pretext to regulate every aspect our lives! How come temperatures have leveled off or gone down across the world? What about the medieval warm period? Are you saying the Vikings didn't settle Greenland? Sorry but you are the one being stupid. As for climategate the investigation was a fraud, the investigators were associated with the accused!
DeathMetalPatriot 8 months ago
@DeathMetalPatriot
"Well sorry but all those institutions are infiltrated by psychotic marxists like yourself,"
- did you seriously just invoke an international communist conspiracy to explain away the concensus on man-made global warming?
i think there may be something in the water where you live,
types10000 8 months ago
@DeathMetalPatriot
"How come temperatures have leveled off or gone down across the world?"
they havnt 'leveled off' we are in the middle of a warming trend. That being said, temperature is affected by many different factors, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is ONE of them. the warming effects of atmospheric CO2 have been demonstrated through experimentation and are readily available to you through the peer reviewed literature.
what exactly do you think will happen if we add more?
types10000 8 months ago
@DeathMetalPatriot
"Are you saying the Vikings didn't settle Greenland? Sorry but you are the one being stupid"
- incorrect your the stupid one; for trying to project your strawman argument about greenland onto me.
"As for climategate the investigation was a fraud..."
- incorrect again, you are once again trying to claim a conspiracy because you dont like the truth. there have been in excess of 4 formal inquieries each undertaken by an external (and independent) institutions.
types10000 8 months ago
@DeathMetalPatriot
so tell me what you THINK you know about climategate. are you one of the people who:
- doesnt understand the colloquial definition of 'trick'
- doesnt understand how graph smoothing works
- thinks that releasing unanalyzed raw data to the general public is ethical
i see your Canadian, i guess that answers the question of whether 'stupid' is contagious.
types10000 8 months ago
@types10000 Well I am not going to spend much time debating you because I have better things to do, I realize you are a mighty youtube warrior, but I really don't care that much about proving you wrong. I have actually interviewed Dr. Tim Ball, and he is an excellent dude, I wish I could say the same for you. I have heard the excuses for the "hide the decline" I don't know why your side is so concerned with the word "trick" when the "hide the decline" much more damning.
DeathMetalPatriot 8 months ago
@DeathMetalPatriot
"I have heard the excuses for the 'hide the decline' I don't know why your side is so concerned with the word trick when the 'hide the decline' much more damning."
a). you've just admitted that it has already been explained to you what they actually mean
b). you need to invoke an international communist conspiracy to explain why the 4+ inquiries didnt pick up on it.
your hopeless.
types10000 8 months ago
@types10000 Why the nerd rage against Canadians? I see you are some kid from Australia, big deal, you really are showing your hand as some bitter little leftist activist. I guess your angry people aren't buying your human hating propaganda anymore, sorry no carbon taxes here. You realize CO2 is only around 4% of all greenhouse gasses? And that temperatures corralate more with the activities of the sun than they do with CO2. The MBH98 graph (the hockey stick graph) has been debunked as well
DeathMetalPatriot 8 months ago
@DeathMetalPatriot
"Why the nerd rage against Canadians?"
- because global warming denial is a phenomena that primarily takes place in the US, it flies in the face of science is propagated by large segments of the media who refuse to acknowledge the scientific consensus and make allegations of controversy where there is none eg. climategate.
your views lead me to believe the stupidity is spreading.
types10000 8 months ago
@DeathMetalPatriot
"you really are showing your hand as some bitter little leftist activist. I guess your angry people aren't buying your human hating propaganda anymore"
- baseless assertion, the fact i can identify logical flaws in your bullshit claims doesnt make me a leftist.
types10000 8 months ago
@DeathMetalPatriot
"You realize CO2 is only around 4% of all greenhouse gasses?"
- Yes, however that says nothing about it's overall warming effect which is derived primarily from how it creates a feedback loop with water vapor (the most numerous and significant greenhouse gas)
"And that temperatures corralate more with the activities of the sun than they do with CO2"
- the fact the sun is a bigger factor doesnt negate how big of a factor CO2 is.
types10000 8 months ago
@types10000 As far as climategate goes I am much more concerned about how they discuss getting scientists who disagree with them blackballed. What about the IPCC, they are supposed to be the worlds leading body and they are not even aloud to look at any other factors to climate than man made ones, it's in their terms of reference. Speaking of the IPCC according to Richard Linzen who was actually the IPCC's 3rd report many of the members are bureaucrats and politicians not scientists.
DeathMetalPatriot 8 months ago
@DeathMetalPatriot
"As far as climategate goes I am much more concerned about how they discuss getting scientists who disagree with them blackballed."
- this is a myth. in reality you are hired and allocated grant money to research a particular topic, you only get black listed if you abuse the grant money for something other than it's intended purpose.
"What about the IPCC...not even aloud to look at any other factors to climate than man made ones"
- that's some nice propaganda
types10000 8 months ago
@types10000 "Propaganda"? Well I am just quoting Dr. Ball, in my interview with him. You see he has actually worked in the field of climate research for over 30 years and has served on commissions of enquiry and knows how they work, he has also received death threats over his work. As far as the "Hide the decline" goes, what I heard was an excuse as to what it might have meant, I don't know if it is true or not. If it is true, than why don't the tree rings work after 1960?
DeathMetalPatriot 8 months ago
@DeathMetalPatriot
"Well I am just quoting Dr. Ball"
- yes, your appealing to authority (logical fallacy) instead of using actual data, big surprise.
"As far as the 'Hide the decline' goes, what I heard was an excuse as to what it might have meant"
- and all your using to determine it as an excuse is your bias opinion.
types10000 8 months ago
@types10000 "yes, your appealing to authority (logical fallacy) "
Excuse me??? You just did the same thing by telling me that all the major institutions believe in AGW So piss off, I have had my fill of your intellectual dishonesty you pissy little twerp. I have tried to be civil, but have had my fill! I really have better things to than argue with a 19 year old know it all kid who really doesn't know shit. I'm done.
DeathMetalPatriot 8 months ago
@DeathMetalPatriot
"Excuse me??? You just did the same thing by telling me that all the major institutions believe in AGW So piss off,"
- INCORRECT, scientific consensus is a measure of the ACCEPTANCE of scientific findings within the scientific community.
the fact global warming is happening is done through evidence that passes the methodology of scientific peer review.
types10000 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeathMetalPatriot
"I really have better things to than argue with a 19 year old know it all kid who really doesn't know shit. I'm done. "
- in other words you have no way of addressing my actual arguments so your going to run away with your tale between your legs.
classy.
types10000 8 months ago
@DeathMetalPatriot
"I don't know if it is true or not. If it is true, then why don't the tree rings work after 1960?"
- THEY DO WORK AFTER 1960.
the statement relates to specific populations of high-altitude trees.
types10000 8 months ago
@types10000 Sorry but there is still not a consensus, just because the heads of some specific group puts out a statement saying there is doesn't change the fact that many scientists out there don't agree, that is not a consensus.
DeathMetalPatriot 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeathMetalPatriot
"Sorry but there is still not a consensus"
- incorrect, there is a consensus and this consensus is demonstrated by the joint statement from every national academy of science on Earth.
"just because the heads of some specific group puts out a statement saying there is doesn't change the fact"
- incorrect, it is not the opinion of the heads of the national academies, it is the majority view of the scientists that comprise the academy.
types10000 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeathMetalPatriot
"doesn't change the fact that many scientists out there don't agree, that is not a consensus."
- incorrect, whilst there maybe a large number of scientists in UNRELATED FIELDS such as psychology.etc when you actually examine the number from the relevant fields there hardly any (virtually none)
eg. in the 31,000 scientist petition against global warming, less than 1% were from fields that had anything to due with examination of climate
types10000 8 months ago
@DeathMetalPatriot 90%+ of earth scientist do.
hockey2333 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeathMetalPatriot
"Speaking of the IPCC according to Richard Linzen who was actually the IPCC's 3rd report many of the members are bureaucrats and politicians not scientists."
- IPCC arnt the ones doing the research! all they do is compile and explain the research in a manner that the public can understand, they work with scientists and their reports have been consistent with the scientific concensus
types10000 8 months ago
@types10000 I also notice that you can't have a civil discussion about the facts, instead you become angry and hurl insults, not the sign of a strong position if you ask me...
DeathMetalPatriot 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeathMetalPatriot
"I also notice that you can't have a civil discussion about the facts,
- i'm not the one who's inventing conspiracy theories because i cant handle reality.
"instead you become angry and hurl insults, not the sign of a strong position if you ask me..."
- incorrect, all i have done is make an accurate assessment a phenomena that is almost exclusively US based (denial of anthropogenic global warming) seeping into surrounding nations.
types10000 8 months ago
@topologyrob except that the science is based entirely on the codes....
...uh oh....
JAROSLAVAGINA 8 months ago
How is it ad hominem to state the fact that McIntyre and McKitrick are industry apologists? They are. I'm assuming that is what you were referring to.
As for the fossil fuel industry making money on the "carbon scam", you must be kidding. They stand to lose $trillions from a move to clean energy.
What really is a scam is using our environment as a dump at no charge.
sailRichard 1 year ago
@westcoast1965
Yes we know the Daily Mail printed that lie, and other conservative papers and blogs picked up the story. How does that make it true? Did you even read what I said? What Jones said was - there is too much statistical noise and it's too short a time period (15 years) to be 95% statistically significant. Shift the time period by one year and it is 95% statistically significant. 93% statistically significant isn't good enough?
sailRichard 1 year ago
Tim Ball recently gave a presentation at the University of Victoria's Young Conservative Club. Unfortunately for Ball, a group of graduate students in climate science were in the audience, which I'm sure was not the uniformly receptive audience Ball expected. These students had the facts necessary to debunk the lies that Ball presented as scientific truth.
desmogblog article - "Tim Ball in Concert: Battered by the Facts"
sailRichard 1 year ago 2
@sailRichard WOW what a one sided made for AGW'ers to get more brainwashed. We have no where the computering power to model climate as it is now very few things are included. Garbage in = garbage out
busguy100 1 year ago
@sailRichard Agreed, I was one of the graduate students present last spring when he at Uvic. To give some context, there was a reason he had to be hosted in the student union building by a conservative student club (no self respecting science faculty or prof would host this clown). It was good for a laugh to listen to his mis-information. Even funner was listening to him talk in circles when confronted by some informed graduate students.
hgddey 1 year ago
I would advise taking any argument you have to Skeptical Science website, where you can learn why the arguments don't hold water. They cover them all.
The real skeptics are the scientists themselves. how do you think science works? There is constant questioning conclusions, rechecking data, challenging each other's work, the peer review process, etc. That doesn't happen with skeptics. They cling to longt ago debunked claims, religiously
sailRichard 1 year ago
westcoast Some of the journals that skeptics have published in, have regretted it. Others are just not very credible journals.
McIntyre and McKitrick are politically motivated fossil and mining industry hacks. They have a history of misrepresenting and distorting the accepted science. They are working with Rep Joe (apologise to BP) Barton (R Texas), the House member who receives the most political contributions from fossil fuel industries.
sailRichard 1 year ago
@sailRichard That's ad hominem stuff. The fossil fuel industry is poised to make money out of the carbon scam. McIntyre published precise arguments outlining the statistical flaws in the 'Hockey Stick' graph from Michael Mann.
westcoast1965 1 year ago
@westcoast1965 It's not ad hominem in the bit where there are allegations that McIntyre and McKitrick have a history of distorting data (which is just a plain fact, easily substantiated).
topologyrob 9 months ago
westcoast1965 You are just spreading a lie about Phil Jones. It is flat out not true. He never said no warming for 15 years. He said too short a time period, to achieve 95% statistical certainty of the upward trend over 15 years. It was actually 92-93%. So that means there is a 7-8% chance the trend is not valid.
Then some of the media and skeptic blogs twisted what he said into a lie.
Those are the facts.
sailRichard 1 year ago 2
@sailRichard
Here's one of the CRU emails: "From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
....The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate....."
westcoast1965 1 year ago
@westcoast1965 This email is so often and so badly misunderstood. Read some commentary from climate scientists on why this has no bad bearing at all on the integrity of the scientists or on the science.
topologyrob 9 months ago
Tim Ball has a PhD in Geography. Typically, those who can't handle the truth like to do a drive by 'ad hominem' attack on him instead of addressing his arguments. Please note that he need not produce countervailing data to reveal lies/deficiencies or flaws in the arguments he is attacking. Big Oil by the way, has a lot of money invested in the carbon market trading scam. Also, is Al Gore a climatologist? Is Rajenda Pachauri a climatologist? Manmade global warming has rubbish.
westcoast1965 1 year ago
@westcoast1965 your absolutely correct. Let me go ahead and throw away millions of data points, in thousands of scientific journals, in a variety of scientific fields of study from the past 30 years because you say global warming is rubbish and we should not try to fix the issue. Dang, you should run for prime minister or president of the country you are from.
arp76 1 year ago
@arp76 Millions of data points? So what? How many valid data sets are there that support the bulk of the AGW scam? There are 4. One is controlled by the CRU at East Anglia. You know.. the guys that wouldn't share their data.. fixed the results and then 'lost' it? You need to investigate this with a little more rigor my friend. It's not 'me' saying this, there's a lot of people including scientists questioning this.
I took it on faith like you... until I looked into it. Do likewise.
westcoast1965 1 year ago
@westcoast1965 actually there was no scam. lol, have you read the email?
Trick is a scientific term -- its used in computational models all of the time for chemistry or computer science or biology. It doesn't mean fraudulent. As for the "decline", that deals with the decline in responsiveness of tree rings to climate not actual temperature.
I read scientific literature daily, do you? I read Science, Nature, American Meteorological journals...what do you read?
arp76 1 year ago
@arp76 'Trick' is not a scientific term... it's colloquial. That fatuous response seems to be standard for all those trying to defend the scientific fraud being perpetrated. And yes I have read the emails. Did you read the ones that reveal an obvious attempt to subvert the peer review process? Or to resist disclosing the data for replication? You may read journals but you need to review the basic tenets of science which rely on objectivity, verification and transparency.
westcoast1965 1 year ago
@westcoast1965 lol, have you heard of google scholar? I suggest you use it and look up computational trick ~100,000 articles and papers come back.
the only people who try to subvert the scientific process are creationists and un-intelligent design bible thumpers
arp76 1 year ago
@arp76 We'll have to agree to disagree. And you're avoiding the question. If you had read the emails you'd know that they openly discussed ousting editors for journals that weren't ideologically aligned. I'll take Lindzen says at face value. He's eminently qualified. I don't listen to Glenn Beck but I do listen to Christopher Monkton.
westcoast1965 1 year ago
@westcoast1965 oh and in case you were wondering...if Trenberth was trying to cover up a conspiracy with Jones, why did he provide a URL to the paper he wrote? Check it out, its called "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's Global energy" it was published in 2009.
have fun.
arp76 1 year ago
@arp76 Why did Jones 'lose' his data? Why did he leave emails indicating that colleagues should destroy it rather than have it verified by others? I've read the emails - there are comments from frustrated programmers referring to 'fudge factor's. Is that a scientific term too? Have you read what Richard Linzen has to say on the subject? The 'science' is far from settled. What pulled us out of the last ice age? Does the sun have anything to do with climate? Jones et al HID THEIR DATA.
westcoast1965 1 year ago
@westcoast1965 yes I have heard of 'Richard Lindzen' (with a d). He's continued to be debunked. His papers are refuted all of the time & he's lied to newsweek - I dont trust his work at all.
Of course the sun has to deal with global warming, it is one of many factors. the leading factor however is man made CO2.
you need to read some scientific journals and stop listening to Glenn Beck
arp76 1 year ago
@arp76 Daily Mail Feb 14, 2010: "Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
westcoast1965 1 year ago
@westcoast1965 thats a lie, reference the BBC Q&A Feb 13, 2010, Jones answers the following qt: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
"I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human "
arp76 1 year ago
@arp76 Seasons greetings.. It's NOT a lie. If you want.. go look it up yourself. Daily Mail, February 14, 2010
"Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
And read precisely what you wrote. "100 % the climate has warmed". I agree. It has - nobody disputes that. We've been in a general warming trend for 300 years.. long before any industrial activity. It's the last 15 years there's been no significant warming. Look it up my friend.
westcoast1965 1 year ago
@westcoast1965 That's just an argument from authority. His evidence is nowhere to be found, and that's what counts. I couldn't care less if he has ten PhDs - where's his evidence?
topologyrob 9 months ago
This video is a lie. Tim Ball was never a climate scientist. We now know what they emails said and how they were wrong amongst the THOUSANDS of emails that showed correct data. Notice that Mr. Ball offers no real data to refute the current science. He's an idiot. Not only that, he's bought and paid for by big oil, big coal and nuclear power. Look it up.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
Tim Ball was NOT a climatologist.
thecauseandfx 1 year ago
My film 'climate change conspiracy' sheds some light on this.
EvolvingCaveman 1 year ago
Oh look, global warming! Another conspiracy made by liberal nuts who want to increase socialism (money stealing). They have done it with pollution, do not let these tree huggers get away with increasing the government size already.
eritasevoli 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want to see something interesting about Global Warming and James Cameron, watch this: youtube.com/watch?v=TKZ4RolQxec
noteviljustwrong 1 year ago
"We must get rid of the Medieval warming period!" Wow.
originalcause 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Climategate
Mann:
"..The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable
way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith's,
we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean
values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline."
ww w. eastangliaemails. com/emails. php?eid=136&filename=938018124 . txt
Dayversion 1 year ago
What is the point of hiding all the "climate change",,,, hiding for what ???
maybikhung 1 year ago
"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today and were sustained at those levels was 15 to 20 million years ago when global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,"Aradhna Tripati,UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
Comment removed
dubified89 1 year ago
Dr Tim Ball was a Geography professor for 8 years at U.Winnepeg, not a climatologist!
markjohnconley 1 year ago
@markjohnconley Many universities house climatology in their geography department. His doctoral thesis was on climate change. Either way, by focusing on his credentials I assume you couldn't find fault with what he actually has to say? Attack the message, not the messenger.
nazlfrag 1 year ago
@nazlfrag, the video commences with an introduction of “the retired climatologist” and a subtitle states “historical climatologist”.I am correcting the error, that is not “attacking the messenger”.
His doctorate was in historical geography NOT climatology, so refer to him as the “retired historical geographer”.
He was Professor of Geography for 8 years at U.ofWinn. a fact Timothy Ball which he confirmed in his own Statement of Claim in a pending lawsuit. I couldn't get past the intro!
markjohnconley 1 year ago
Central planning and control doesn't work. A Central planning and control example is the Euro zone. It wont make it, but, the UN goons are trying to hang on to their failed ideas.
US rejected central planning and became the most successful economy in history. US embraces socialization and is becoming stagnant and is beginning to fail. China embraces central planning and fails for centuries. China embraces free markets and succeeds like the US used to.
Obvious proof is all around us. look
cooperbry 1 year ago
@cooperbry : Well for the moment so far I know the US isn't the most successful economy... otherwise you would not hear them complain all the time...
How is the deficit coming along? How is the debt? how is the employment? oh and how is your industrial sector? gone?!? how is your health care coverage?
nigelelsass 1 year ago
@nigelelsass
Thanks for making my point. Socialism and central planning just doesn't work...
cooperbry 1 year ago
@cooperbry : ACTUALLY... Germany with a more planned industrial sector and voluntarist policies is doing by far better than the US now (growth rate between 3 and 4% of the GDP).
Central planning has alllowed China to create a "rare earth" integrated sector which the US has not managed to...
Central planning in a MIXED ECONOMY is still part of China and is doing rather well for them - unlike the US they do not only have a "laissez-faire" capitalism.
nigelelsass 1 year ago
@nigelelsass
In the US, it is NOT laissez-faire capitalism. The government has it's mitts in everything. The government is the problem NOT the solution.
cooperbry 1 year ago
@cooperbry : Well guys, do what you want... I am quite sure you will fail at it anyway.
When your government however reduced the market oversight it created problems - for which you pay the price - but worse, for which other countrys have to pay for the mess created by the US (what a surprise)...
So if you could become totally isolationist and just play in your corner and withdraw from all international trade and markets, it would be highly appreciated.
nigelelsass 1 year ago
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010: tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Tom Harris
ICSC
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
If the science behind the theory is so strong, why do the world's top scientists, and the UN, corrupt the scientific method to promote the theory?
Forget everything else about this scandal. Just think about scientists who forbid dissenting research from being published then claim that the number of pro research publications helps prove their theory.
That's a corruption of science.
Start over!
jackdenver60 1 year ago
@jackdenver60 : There isn't corruption of science... the procedure of adding instrumental temperature record to tree rings as proxy was well known and published. Discovering something you previously ignored doesn't make it a lie.
Additionally, if I write in a private email "fuck the us", will somebody hack my email and make it a headline "this guy has intercourse with the whole United States"? that is how ridiculous it id.
nigelelsass 1 year ago 2
Nobody knows the exact mechanisms on climate to know whats going to happen. We all have our theories. Let alone to make any earth changing decisions about climate policy. Politicians need to be patient and very careful. Only mother nature knows. We are but children.
brian39900 1 year ago 2
flat earth global warming nutters are a danger to humanity
MrBlimbo 1 year ago
@RandomConcepts keep the faith, the world is flat and you go to your grave believing it, good for you.
MrBlimbo 1 year ago
Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the UK, the results: "The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by the emails and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit.".
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Why are the other planets also warming? what industry is on jupiter? are lots of cows farting on Mars?
RadicalNotion 1 year ago
@RadicalNotion There are fundamental flaws in the 'other planets are warming' argument. Not all planets in the solar system are warming (Uranus is cooling.), The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950 and in fact has shown a slight cooling trend in recent decades.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@RadicalNotion ... Other planets are warming? Link to information about this?
emantabrizi 1 year ago
@RadicalNotion: source? others are warming so if your point is a repeat of the "it's the sun" you are already proven many many times wrong.
nigelelsass 1 year ago
@RadicalNotion Hey, it is highly probable that the Martian atmosphere is saturated with bovine flatulence.
Itcus1 1 year ago
Climate news climate deniers don't want anyone to see...
.
Political spin surrounds energy bill
.
Motorists driving towards Charleston on Interstate 64 are greeted by what many would view as an unwelcome sight: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's face.
.
The advertisement, from a diverse coalition, warns that Iran reaps millions in oil profits every day Congress delays passage of an energy bill.
. Lewisburg WVNS TV West Virginia
15 June 2010
Nightversionn 1 year ago
The emails are a non-issue. There's nothing remotely special about their content or what is contained by them.
MalachorWraith 1 year ago
@MalachorWraith it seems, you haven't seen those e-mails!
2sSHenky 1 year ago
@2sSHenky
Yes, I have. You willfully misinterpret what is being said to perpetuate your bullshit.
MalachorWraith 1 year ago
Comment removed
2sSHenky 1 year ago
@MalachorWraith willfully? so, there can only be one interpretation on a single issue?
2sSHenky 1 year ago
@2sSHenky
No, but you can choose to interpret a statement in a willfully deviant way as opposed to the way that it was meant to be interpreted.
ww.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY&playnext=1&videos=elmSN_Ins7g
MalachorWraith 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Skepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection."
tinyurl . c om / oiltrolls
aerobique 1 year ago
The CRU has been investigated by:
1. The House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee
and
2. An International Science Assessment Panel.
3. The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review
The findings of all inquiries are now in. Here they are:
1. ww w.publications.parliament.u k/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf
2. ww w.uea.ac.u k/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP
3. ww w.cce-review.o rg/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf
Professor Jones and the CRU were exonerated by all inquiries.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 Another panel of eminent global climatologists has concluded scientists whose e-mails were hacked last year had not as critics alleged, distorted scientific evidence to prove global warming was occurring and Humans were primarily responsible. Like earlier panels convened by Britain’s Royal Society and the House of Commons, reaching essentially the same verdict. proving these attacks on climate science are not based on science, they’re based on naivety and political manipulation.
danielnz1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danielnz1 "Another panel of eminent global climatologists has concluded scientists whose e-mails were hacked last year had not ...distorted scientific evidence..."
Do you have a link to their report?
cristop5 1 year ago 3
@danielnz1 Political motivation? Hmmm? And cap and trade, agenda 21 are not political motivation? Look it is a scam plain and simple. It's over they can hang up the Global War..... Oops now it's climate change bullshit!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@danielnz1 The only 'attack on climate science' came from the corrupt activities and illegal FOI obstruction practised by Phil Jones and his collegues at CRU. Subsequent attempts to whitewash the CRU and excuse their dodgey practises only serves to further tarnish the reputation of climate science and scientists in general.
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
@cristop5 The Oxburgh & Muir inquiries were set up by UEA & stacked with vested interests. No suprise they found everything was tickety-boo. Oxburgh has subsequently admitted that his 5-page 'Science Assessment' did not actually assess the science - and the CRU papers they reviewed were selected & approved by UEA & CRU director Phil Jones. No inquiries interviewed the skeptical scientists targeted in the emails. None checked the email archive nor the illegal "delete all emails" requests.
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
@MMGWsceptic Had the UEA NOT set up inquiries you would have been outraged. But when they do you are still put out! But don't worry, they were independent.
1.House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. This consists of MPs and unrelated to the UEA.
2. Scientific Appraisal Panel. Chosen on advice from the Royal Society. No panelists were associated with the UEA.
3. Independent Climate Change Email Review. Again this has no links to the UEA, Climatic Research Unit, or the IPCC.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 2: Oxburgh's got numerous financial interests in climate fear promotion - not to mention other panellists who co-authored papers with the accused. Try googling 'kelly climate audit' for some unpublished comments from the panel's electronics prof. He wa'n't too impressed - even with Phil Jones' hand picked papers.
3) The Muir report was mostly written by Geoffrey Boulton - an IPCC alarmist who worked at UEA for 18 years LOL - he was the only one who questioned Phil Jones.
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
@MMGWsceptic Boulton worked at UEA from 1968 - 1980, then had a part-time appointment from 1980 - 1986, whilst working primarily in the University of Amsterdam. Since then, he had no contact with the UEA or the CRU.
So your hypothesis is: "Boulton's link to the UEA that ended 24 yrs left him so dedicated to the university that he could not criticize the CRU. Furthermore he was able to persuade the other panelists to ignore all wrongdoing."
Fail.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 Russell said his Team had “no prejudicial interest in climate change & climate science” & “no professional contact with UEA or CRU”.
However, not only did Boulton work at UEA for 18 years, but in Oct 2009 he even presented a “Facing Up to Climate Change” conference with presenters from CRU!! Oh, and 10 of Boulton's years at UEA overlapped with Phil Jones!
Do you think Geoff questioned Phil thoroughly? I bet they just had a nice chat about the good old days.
WHITEWASH !!!
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
@MMGWsceptic "Oxburgh has subsequently admitted that his 5-page 'Science Assessment' did not actually assess the science.."
"subsequently"!?
No. Had you read the report itself you would have seen that their brief "...was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct. Rather it was asked to come to a view on the integrity of the Unit’s research.."
And they found that was OK.
The science itself will always be subject to ongoing evaluation.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 Numerous press releases prior to Oxburgh said his inquiry would be a SCIENCE APPRAISAL. For this reason the HoC and Muir inquiries specifically excused themselves from wider questions about the science BECAUSE it was Oxburgh's job to look at the science. After Oxburgh published, HoC inquiry chairman Phil Willis "couldn't believe" UEAs “sleight of hand“ in the sneeky way they changed their inquiry from 'science' to 'scientist' appraisal. I believe this is what CRU/UEA call a 'trick".
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
@MMGWsceptic The SAP inquiry looked at the integrity of the science, not the quality. Why? Because it was the integrity (falsifying data etc) that was under attack by the hacker spin doctors.
Willis has an unrealistic notion of what an inquiry can deliver if he thinks it could somehow guage the "quality" of scientific research. I repeat, the science itself will always be subject to ongoing evaluation. There is no point at which science suddenly becomes "good enough" or "correct".
cristop5 1 year ago
Royal Soc: "we have decided on .. an external reappraisal of the SCIENCE ITSELF" (Oxburgh review)
Muir: "Our review’s remit does not invite it to re-appraise the scientific work of CRU. That re-appraisal is being done by UEA, with the assistance of the RS" (Oxburgh review)
Acton: "As for the science itself... I will announce the chair of a panel to reassess the science (Oxburgh) & make sure there's nothing wrong"
Oxburgh: "science was not the subject of our study”
WHITEWASH !!!
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
Scam artists pretending to be practicing science.
jonesgerard 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'Climate scientists at a top UK research unit have emerged from an inquiry with their reputations for honesty intact but with a lack of open