The Climate Change Hoax

When people, on either side of the issue, resort to insults and political retoric, it shows they have no facts to prove their point. I started this thread to show that the mainstream is not based on solid science. If any group can't provide the data they base their claims on for peer review it is not science. You may believe it or not, however, please don't call it science.

 

Having read reams of academic argument on both sides of the "climatic debate" My post was a backhander to you for postulating as a "logical argument" that Conspiracy theory was not demonstrated by a few emails - go read all the data released - it may take a bit of digging now, but it was verified as authentic, and quite a damning indictment...

I doubt either extreme climatic positions have an undeniable case and feel that what is being witnessed is part of a normal swing in climatic variation... So with a strong emphasis on denial - with no documented refutation or analysis of the data released you got what you deserved - A full head of steam to liven up the party a bit...

May I suggest that on both issues that a bit or careful reading on what is used to base the position presented be read, analysed and assessed by data you consider verifiable and worthy and present the other view in the debate...

I post comment AFTER presenting the evidence and resources relating to my interpretation - - I saw economic and climatic issues coming and had the time and inclination to read over the past several years - my views may change with the strength of the evidence but on data available now, my view would coincide with that most likely to prevail... Economics is corrupted and in total global disarray and climate change is a concern but not such a major issue as access to potable water, sustainable supply of food and liquid fuel.... Kindly do some reading... Times they are a changing...

On the Climate change thread I posted one of the initial comments on the release of the datafile as I figured Guillermo would appreciate that information...

 

For anyone interested, Phil Jones (the CRU Director at the centre of ClimateGate) has stepped down pending an investigation.

It would seem the warmists attempts to brush this under the carpet are failing.

Conspiracy theory or not, CRU are a publicly funded body. Requests under the Freedom of Information Act for the data and calculations used to create their temperature reconstructions have been met with avoidance tactics and outright lies and, of course, no released data or calculations to allow validation of their conclusions (a basic scientific principle).

This, in itself, is reason enough for them to be removed from the scientific process. The leaked/hacked emails only add names and further evidence to the fraud they have committed on the world.

One or two emails taken out of context would be a non story. In this case there are more than one or two emails and, in many cases, there is a complete 'conversation' listed, so context is there for all to see. The names involved are some of the most influential names in the field, which makes it all the more shocking (no matter that many suspected this was happening).

To hide data, destroy emails (even after the FOI officer advised against it) and lie outright in order to avoid complying with the law is not acceptable in any field. The fact it is in climate science is neither here nor there.

I await the 'independent' investigation with bated breath!

 

this investigation is to my knowledge only an internal one from the East Anglia University and i personally doubt that it will come to any 'useful' result...

in german we have a saying:
"keine krähe kratzt der anderen ein auge aus."
which means something like this:
no crow is taking the eye out of an other crow...

 

perfectly correct!

and the fact that CRU has destroyed their raw data is suspicous like nothing else...
this alone stinks and all of their work so far needs to be questioned...
there is actually no need to talk anymore about the mails and if they are sound or a clever fake... the destroying of raw data is basis enough to investigate their work thouroghly...

 

I have no problem with checking out CRU thoroughly, and double checking their claims. If they're turning out bogus research, they should be called to account for it. But they are most certainly not the only people working on this subject, and a whole lot of others have come to the same conclusions.

To carry on like a British Climate Research Unit single handedly created the subject of climate change, controlled research all over the world, and somehow compelled scientists in numerous countries and numerous fields to falsify their data and conclusions is simply preposterous.

I'm sorry, gentlemen; the Brits don't have that kind of power. It's been a long time since Britannia ruled the waves, and hence the world. And I don't believe a cabal of British scientists could have pulled off a conspiracy of that magnitude at the peak of its influence.

 

A quick reality check here, in response to the claims that CRU falsified its conclusions, then deliberately destroyed data in an attempt to hide the truth:

NASA climate modeler: "The original data is curated at the met services where it originated." In response to a comment on his blog Real Climate asking whether it is true that the CRU lost the data, Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, replied: "No. The original data is curated at the met services where it originated."
Scientists: CRU climate change findings similar to those of other research centers with separate data sets

Scientists note that datasets from other research centers show the same climate trends. The Greenwire article said that Tom Karl, director of NOAA's Climatic Data Center, "noted that the conclusions of the IPCC reports are based on several data sets in addition to the CRU, including data from NOAA, NASA and the United Kingdom Met Office. Each of those data sets basically show identical multi-decadal trends, Karl said." The article also said that Ben Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, "said CRU's major findings were replicated by other groups, including the NOAA climatic data center, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and also in Russia."

Santer: "[K]ey point here is that other groups ... WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030

 

There is a "bit" of a conspiracy here. I have spent many years as crew and captain on UNOLS Science vessel. As such I have some inside on how these PHD's ( read scientists ) get funded.

A PHD in Oceanography or Climatology get his gig teaching a a University, often for 30K-60K a year. In order to better his/her position in life the must do reasearch and get "published". In oreder to do research and get "published" the must have money. Now they allmost all get thier funding from either NSF ( National Science Foundation ) or NOAA or ONR ( Office of Naval research ).

These 3 offices put out very specific guidlines on what they are willing to fund. Right now they are very intrested in Global Warming and as such they are funing many many global warming projects.

So If your a PHD trying to get funding so that you can stay employed at your university and get Tenyeared and are in the Fields of Oceanography or Climatology, or even Meterology you are applying for global warming funding from NSF, ONR, and NOAA.

If in the course of your research you should find that there is no evidence of global warming you have 2 choices when you publish.
1. State that your evidence dose not support global warming and recieve no further global warming studies funding from NOAA, NSF or ONR.
2. State that you evidence is inconclusive and you require further funding to further studie the issue.

If you choose option 2, your still going to have to publish something.

Now if your evidence should in some way at all point to a rise in global warming you have a very good chance of recieving further funding from NSF ONR and NOAA for further studies.

Its not really a conspiracy, its just a really bad way for us to "buy" science in the country and in the world.

If the science community was guarenteed funding no matter what thier evidence showed or even what they were studing. I think. You would get a LOT better science done and a lot better finds.

K9

 

While there has always been a certain amount of pressure from whoever provides the cash, I think it's a sweeping over-generalization to imply that funds for climate research depend primarily on coming up with the 'right' conclusions. That would mean there is no integrity at all in science, and make it as useless as astrology or theology in explaining the world around us.

If you're interested in the influence of money on the climate change debate, you might also look at the amounts that certain naysayers on the subject have been paid by the petroleum industry.

 

What Im saying isnt that PHDs are forced to come up with the right conclusions.

What I am saying is " If your studies dont find evidence of warming then you have no reason to apply for further global warming studies funds. "

As such if you wish to get some of the money allocated by the 3 agencies that pay for 90% of all of these studies in the US and allmost 40% world wide you have to either find evidence of the warming to require further studies ( read funding ) or you have to come up with a new Hypothesis to warrent a new studie.

They are NOT being forced into finding anything. But if they want more money they have to have a reason to go back.

Im probably not explaining this as well as some others might be able to. However from what I have seen, its the way science works. If the funding agencies want to pay for studing whales then you study whales. If they want to study mice you have better find a way to research mice or else you get no money.

K9

 

If scientists are routinely coming up with data that shows climate change exists so they can continue being funded, instead of because that's what they've found, they aren't really scientists any more.

Finding or creating a phenomenon that doesn't really exist is a little different from studying whales or plankton because that's what some agency is interested in.

 

Well data is simply raw numbers. A human can interpret raw number many many diffrent ways cant they?

So if your livelyhood is dependant upon what you see in massive collums of raw numbers then its likely you will see whats in your best intrest. Its simply human nature. I mean its all great to stand on your princaples (sp?) but you gotta eat also, right?

K9

 

And please excuse my atrotious spelling today. Its just one of those days ya know

K9

 

Scientists have always been exposed to the vagaries of fortune, and the necessity to eat. Somehow an amazing amount of science has managed to get conducted anyway, much of it producing results in direct opposition to very powerful forces and beliefs.

 

Very true but also its often against the norms of convential science. As a matter of fact allmost all of the truely great finds in science have been done on allmost no funding and very often against the established scientific norms of the day. ( thinking here of contintal drift, Meteor causing KT boundry and Gravity Im sure there are many more )

K9