The Climate Change Hoax

[gonzo]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936289.ece

[wet feet]

A story that the British media is studiously ignoring.Given the ramifications,why won't the department in question simply publish the raw data or invite independent assessors to review their output?For years the Independent on Sunday has espoused the gloomiest environmental predictions and in today's edition there is not a single word on the matter.Could it be for fear of being exposed as one of the emperor's sycophants admiring his new clothes?

[gonzo]

They claim they destroyed the raw data after using it. Then they claim it is a scientific study. So much for peer review!

[masalai]

Sounds like so many experts caught out - - "in the golden shower experiment" (pissing contest) I blame gonzo for this thought line with his words "...peer review..." (a review of by a group of pee-ers...)

[hoytedow]

As for myself, I'm just waiting for the Thames to freeze over.

[masalai]

If it does during winter then so be it... There are normal fluctuations in the climate - DEFINITELY no anthropomorphic-warming and likewise no mini-ice-age - - - Just climate change doing its normal thing

[troy2000]

I think those emails are being blown all out of proportion. Proving scientists are human and fallible is hardly the same as proving scientists worldwide in dozens of fields are all engaged in some sort of massive conspiracy; that's paranoid conspiracy theory at its worst.

[hoytedow]

When reputable scientists are bullied into silent acquiescence by the AGW gang, it can be no less than a conspiracy, and a malevolent one at that.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

When reputable scientists are bullied into silent acquiescence by the AGW gang, it can be no less than a conspiracy, and a malevolent one at that.

Do you really believe the "AGW gang" has successfully managed to bully thousands of scientists in countries worldwide, who are working in all sorts of different fields, into not only falsifying their data, but coordinating it with falsified data from all the other scientists?

Seems to me if they had that kind of power over people and that kind of organizational skills, they'd find more interesting and remunerative ways to employ it.....

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by troy2000

I think those emails are being blown all out of proportion. Proving scientists are human and fallible is hardly the same as proving scientists worldwide in dozens of fields are all engaged in some sort of massive conspiracy; that's paranoid conspiracy theory at its worst.

Too bad this is EXACTLY what these emails prove

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Seems to me if they had that kind of power over people and that kind of organizational skills, they'd find more interesting and remunerative ways to employ it.....

They didn't need "that kind of power" to be effective in their efforts. There are only a few thousand scientists at most working this case worldwide. All they needed to do was intimidate a few key, well respected journals like Science, and Nature to be effective, and that's exactly what they've done. Some of the most eminent climate scientists in the world are skeptical of the so-called consensus view, and each and every one of these men reports great difficulty getting their papers published, sometimes waiting YEARS and re-submitting repeatedly. Just look at the case of Svensmark for one.

Jimbo

[troy2000]

Yeah.

And evolution is a conspiracy too, supported by Satanists to undermine God's power.

And AIDS is a man-made disease, created to keep blacks subjugated.

And the government is forcing the transition to digital TV sets because they can be used for mind control.

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Yeah. And evolution is a conspiracy too, suported by Satanists to undermine God's power.

And AIDS is a man-made disease, created to keep blacks subjugated.

And the government is forcing the transition to digital TV sets because they can be used for mind control.

You're just off on a hyperbolic rant now, which usually means you are 'out of gas' when it comes to facts. The facts have been covered in the greatest detail on the other great climate change thread, which is approaching 250 pages and 3700 replies. You are welcome to wade in anytime.

Here's a few FACTS you should be aware of in advance:

There has been NOTHING unusual or anomalous about 20th century warming. In the past there have been warming events of equal or greater magnitude and rapidity, even within recorded human history. The only support for this idea that 20th century warming was anomalous was to be found in the papers of Mann, Briffa, Hansen and Jones, the principals of the 'climategate' scandal.

Furthermore the now infamous MBH-98 "Hockey Stick" reconstruction and its sons and daughters have all been thoroughly and irrevocably discredited due to revelations of(erroneous or fraudulent? you decide) data manipulations and egregious cherry-picking. "Dangerous Global Warming" apparently means 3 carefully selected trees on the Yamal penninsula near Siberia.

The fabled 'positive feedbacks' are missing in action; in the real world, the feedback is negative, even strongly negative.

No plausible 'work around' has ever been postulated for spectral saturation (Beer-Lambert); the mechanism outlined at SurrealClimate is severely wanting given the uncontested observed cooling in the "Higher and drier" parts of the atmosphere in stark contradiction to the predictions contained therein.

The residence time of CO2 is short; 5-6 years only. All the measurement studies ever done (35 so far) confirm this. The IPCC's "50-200 years" is but a computer modeler's fantasy. They have not ONE SINGLE measurement study to back up this claim. Nada. You'd think that after 19 years they'd have at least ONE by now!

We haven't even touched Henry's Law of equilibrium concentration and the entire 'missing CO2' problem.

And how about the mass-balance studies? Why can't we find anywhere near the predicted amount of 'fossil' carbon in the present atmosphere if it's the burning of fossil fuels that's causing CO2 levels to rise? Seems a little odd, huh?

If all of this sounds like goobledygook to you, then you know so little of the details of the AGW hypothesis that (no offense intended) you have not yet even earned the right to such a strong conviction in the veracity of your arguments.

I suggest you do your due diligence.

Jimbo

[masalai]

Troy are you another "denier" no wonder the "glory of USA" is fading fast... Oh well rejoice in your own comfort zone whilst the illusion lasts, but be prepared to accept the situation for what it becomes as no real sympathy can be extended to such rejection of the truth... Corruption is too strong inside USA because dummies refuse to read the writing on the wall, or take remedial action...

Have a good day...

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by masalai

Troy are you another "denier" no wonder the "glory of USA" is fading fast... Oh well rejoice in your own comfort zone whilst the illusion lasts, but be prepared to accept the situation for what it becomes as no real sympathy can be extended to such rejection of the truth... Corruption is too strong inside USA because dummies refuse to read the writing on the wall, or take remedial action...

Have a good day...

Masalai, you just started an entire new thread so you could whine about the way someone else was talking to you. Then you come barging in here, seizing on this subject as just another excuse to start pissing on my country again. How do you expect people to react to the sort of garbage you're spewing? You think they should love you for it?

I'm a pretty peaceful man in my old age. But if you talked to me like that in person, there's a fair chance I'd backhand you off your barstool....mate.

Jimbo, I'm not quite as ignorant on the subject of climate change as you assume. I just get weary of the tinfoil-hat crowd, that sees everything they disagree with as a deliberate, malevolent conspiracy. And I'm sorry, but cherry-picking a handful of emails out of thousands from one small group of scientists doesn't prove anything at all.