Global Warming Scam Exposed?

BCO said:
Can we please leave Al Gore out of this... I don't give a **** what he says - he's not an expert on this subject. Using Gore as one's authority on GW is the same as linking a lame list of "scientists" compiled by a guy whose last business was a Y2K scam.
Click to expand...
He and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. You cant separate them, they are one in the same. I'm just saying, You said you wanted people who were qualified to make statments and not the 31k who actually hold BSC degrees, when the father of it all doesn't know his ass from his elbow????

Come on guys, you keep talking about THOUSANDS of qualified scientists who oppose AGW, when in actual fact there's simply a massive spin machine and a HANDFUL of peer reviewed papers. It's grasping at straws in the most pathetic way possible.
Click to expand...
Ok, Let me ask a question then, Do you admit that global warming could NOT be as bad as its made out to be, and that they MIGHT of made mistakes.

Because that's pretty much all that I am saying. Does it exist.. Yeah. Are we REALLY to blame? We dont know we dont have enough data to say yes or no. If you agree to that, then we are actually on the same page?

Oh I found this paper btw which you might use to argue against my point of Climatology not being an exact science http://news.stanford.edu/pr/00/000223schneiderAAAS.html The funny part is this was written in 2000. What did Al Gore and the IPCC do.. they gave them exactly what they asked as far as I am concerned, and everyone ate it up hook line and sinker.

Congress we all know are a bunch of idiots. You give them something written on paper and they believe it, regardless of the truth behind it. Why do you think the USA are not using the metric system, because a stupid congress man had his PA attend a lecture on the differences between the two. She left after the first 10 minutes where the speaker mentioned that the metric system would never work. If she had stayed 5 min more she would of realised that the first 10 minutes of his entire talk was in jest and a joke. But she reported this back to her boss and they have been stuck with it ever since.

The problem now is the USA did jump up and go OHHH, lets fix this, lets fund it. The whole world followed like sheep. Its easy to see that there are more papers being published by an organisation that as a few billion in its budget, compared to the smaller guys. Unfortunately its the smaller guys who could be right and a 1000 times smarter.

PS: As I said, your more than welcome to send me your details and I'll organise a Skype/EVO meeting with scientists who all have their BSC PHD's or more.
 
Last edited:
Kalvaer said:
Ok, Let me ask a question then, Do you admit that global warming could NOT be as bad as its made out to be, and that they MIGHT of made mistakes.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to engage you on Gore, as it's irrelevant - if anything Jim Hansen is the "father" of AGW.

Re. the bolded question above. I agree with you entirely. That being said, there's no other scientifically sound explanation than that put forward by the mainstream view (perhaps GCR might explain some stuff but it's early days yet) so I think it's foolhardy to write them off because their theory might not be 100% accurate and airtight at all times. It's the best we have.

It is certainly NOT a hoax.

@ morgoth - you definitely do no require PhD to have an opinion on the matter (I sure don't), but people without relevant qualifications cannot be championed to disprove AGW, like that list of 31000 scientists is attempting to do.
 
Not sayings its 100% a hoax.. but that its be fabricated to be more than it is. As to the Gore part, I'll accept that at least. Its much better than everyone who says.. "OHHH have you watched that movie by Gore.. you'll understand then".. Blah

Though he certainly is the one championing GW, something he doesn't have the qualifications to do and he will ALWAYS be brought up

Just as you though feel the mainstream viewpoint is the correct one, I feel the climate cycle holds more merit. But that's what makes science and the whole world more interesting. Just as Higgs and Hawking are currently disagreeing on the biggest experiment known to mankind, something that puts GW's budget to shame
 
BCO said:
There's a negative correlation between ENSO and SAM being in their positive (warmest) phases and there being less snow melt. When ENSO and SAM's positive phases happen at the same time the effect on snow melt is most drastic. In other words, when ENSO and SAM cause ocean water to be warmer, snow melts are less. On the rare occasions that ENSO and SAM are in the positive phase at the same time, (like summer 2008/2009) snow melts are even less.
Click to expand...

So, its all one big coincidence? Especially since the corollary can be applied to the Arctic snow melts, namely that the situation could reverse quite rapidly and this whole situation may just be a temporary perfect storm?
 
Kalvaer said:
Not sayings its 100% a hoax.. but that its be fabricated to be more than it is. As to the Gore part, I'll accept that at least. Its much better than everyone who says.. "OHHH have you watched that movie by Gore.. you'll understand then".. Blah

Though he certainly is the one championing GW, something he doesn't have the qualifications to do and he will ALWAYS be brought up

Just as you though feel the mainstream viewpoint is the correct one, I feel the climate cycle holds more merit. But that's what makes science and the whole world more interesting. Just as Higgs and Hawking are currently disagreeing on the biggest experiment known to mankind, something that puts GW's budget to shame
Click to expand...

True indeed. :D
 
Last week's leaked e-mails range from innocuous to embarrassing and, critics believe, scandalous. They show that some of the field's most prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data ("have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots"), cheered the deaths of skeptical journalists, and plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.
Click to expand...
Hmm that might explain why we don't see that many published papers against the theory
 
Nice general overview of the whole incident at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

As it stands now, not knowing whether the leaked emails are all real and not knowing how much has been left out of the leaked mails, I tend to agree with this:

Columnist George Monbiot, an environmental and political activist, said that while he did not see the vast conspiracy that global warming sceptics saw, he did see this as a “major blow” and that “emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging”. Moreover, Monbiot was concerned with the apparent attempts to conceal and even destroy data that was subject to a freedom of information request and the alleged collusion to prevent peer reviewed publication by climate sceptics. Monbiot has also called for the resignation of the CRU head, Phil Jones, saying that, "[These revelations] raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed."[21]
Click to expand...
 
BCO said:
Nice general overview of the whole incident at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

As it stands now, not knowing whether the leaked emails are all real and not knowing how much has been left out of the leaked mails, I tend to agree with this:
Click to expand...
Going to check that now.. I have about 15 windows open trying to cross reference it all. I completely agree with what said in the link though by bandwidthaddict. <jest>Seems you don't need a PHD to make a whole theory crumble </jest>

People seem to be missing the real issue in the CRU emails. Gavin over at realclimate keeps distracting people by saying the issue is the scientists being nasty to each other, and what Trenberth said, and the Nature “trick”, and the like. Those are side trails. To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency.

Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking the FOIA allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record (HadCRUT3) was valid science.

This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and seeing if your math is correct.

As far as I know, I am the person who made the original Freedom Of Information Act to CRU that started getting all this stirred up. I was trying to get access to the taxpayer funded raw data out of which they built the global temperature record. I was not representing anybody, or trying to prove a point. I am not funded by Mobil, I’m an amateur scientist with a lifelong interest in the weather and climate. I’m not “directed” by anyone, I’m not a member of a right-wing conspiracy. I’m just a guy trying to move science forwards.
Click to expand...

As to the emails. It appears as if Phil Jones has admitted that the emails are legit, But cant remember what he said in emails dating back as far as 10 years ago and in what context things where said like "Apply this trick" to change the data.

The most intersting is what they are calling the "harry-read-me.txt" which is from a programmer stating things like it is impossible to sort out this data as there is to much missing, and then being told to make it up :eek:

All the files can be found here: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident said:
A spokesman for the Met Office that works with the UEA on climate monitoring, said: "We are utterly confident that there was no collusion or manipulation. All the data used was peer reviewed and we are certain it is fully reliable."
Click to expand...
Something cant be peer reviewed if its reviewed internally and the data not release, Which I think is the whole problem here. When people tried to get the data to do just that, Phil did everything to stop them, even attempting to delete all the data, emails and told everyone to do the same

YES, it might not be such a big deal, But this opens massive doors into the integrity of the data if so much was done to cover it up.
 
We can all Agree that the Co2 we pump into the air is by no means healthy for the enviroment. However this whole, humans are making the earth hotter is a farse. Has been for a long time I have been posting about it for a while already. Obviously had nothing to back it up but it all seems to sort itself out.

Should be cut back on Co2 we push into the enviroment - YES

Are we causing earth to go hotter - No (Untill proven otherwise)
 
Pitbull said:
We can all Agree that the Co2 we pump into the air is by no means healthy for the enviroment. However this whole, humans are making the earth hotter is a farse. Has been for a long time I have been posting about it for a while already. Obviously had nothing to back it up but it all seems to sort itself out.

Should be cut back on Co2 we push into the enviroment - YES

Are we causing earth to go hotter - No (Untill proven otherwise)
Click to expand...

I think the basic calculations are fairly straightforward to establish the greenhouse effect of X concentration of Y gas in the atmosphere. I don't think that any of these emails affect that at all, and it can be clearly shown that anthropogenic CO2 can and does increase temperature.

@Kalvaer - I agree about the seriousness of some of these claims (and some of these need to be looked at in context, like the Climate Research peer review stuff. If one understands the whole story around Climate Research some of the statements in the emails are much less shocking) but AGW theory is founded on a lot more than the work being done by Jones et al at Hadley. At worst, these leaked emails have knocked out one (of dozens) of the legs of supporting theory from under AGW. That's talking about the science itself. It's done a lot more damage in terms of PR (which is what the hardcore skeptics thrive on).
 
I had a lengthy discussion about this today over Skype with Claire. While she also agrees that GW is a reality, she has some doubts, As she put it:

"When you have error bars (with real data you always have error bars) you can only really say there is a trend if the trend is "bigger" than the size of the error bars with this data, the error bars are probably so way huge. We call it having bad statistics - not enough data to say anything meaningful"

Yes I think maybe ice coring and tree ring data can help fill in the gaps, but you're trying to fill in the gaps of a system that's over 4 million years old. If the leaked emails are correct in that they couldn't even sort the data from a 40 year period, How can we believe what they say for a 4 million year old system? This unfortunately effects ALL of the global warming stats since it means none of the others could possible sort the data out as well from missing and incorrectly names cells

I thought of something though while we were talking.

What if this heating cycle is normal?
What if the cooling cycle is normal?
If we stop CO2 and other gases from entering the atmosphere, will the earth continue its natural cycle?
What if the cooling cycle goes to the other extreme, so that we enter an ice age?
Are humans more capable of surviving the warming period we have now, (and possible swimming) or temperatures of -40C below zero?

What if.. just MAYBE, the CO2 gases we are releasing, are stopping the cooling cycle, and we are actually slowing down a massive cool that would freeze us all to death instead?

I don't know about you all, but I personally love winter, but I prefer the beach to be honest. And if it floods.. it will be a shorter drive to Durbs :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X