The sad thing is that there are people out there that genuinely believe that the whole Ozone thing was a conspiracy bought about by DuPont in a profit taking exercise, because they had a bunch of patents relating to CFC's that were about to expire.
Global Warming Science, or Pure Advocacy? Hadley Climate Research Unit Hacked
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
- Status
The sad thing is that there are people out there that genuinely believe that the whole Ozone thing was a conspiracy bought about by DuPont in a profit taking exercise, because they had a bunch of patents relating to CFC's that were about to expire.
E.Coli, Faecal Coliforms, and viral particles make up only a small fraction by weight of raw effluent...
countezero
Registered Senior Member
I don't think it's one of many variables. And I think you're missing the points made in the articles. Based on what one of the articles said, the data is question "is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely." In other words, this data was the catalyst for other conclusions.
Also, the issue is not whether warming has occurred in certain areas, but whether "after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history," and, of course, whether that increase can be attributed to man-made CO2.
Lack of interest?
I don't care very much to involve myself in the mud-fight that is global warming, and have not really done so here. All I've said is be wary of sources who muddle data and have financial stakes in the outcomes.
Or lack of expertise?
I know you, in your blue-collar worker's paradise, know everything about every subject, but I am no scientist or dilettante, and I tend to not want to sound like one. I said in my initial post that I was not an expert and would not claim to argue which side of the debate is correct, because, frankly, I do not know. Since then, I have done little more than put forward what my sources have said and expressed concern and what appears to be sloppy science and collusion. If my suppositions are incorrect, then say so. Leave your theories about member's reading comprehension and the Media, which are not relevant, at the door.
Lamarck was a cataylsis for Darwin, what your point?
So then start denying all the other evidence for anthropogenic global warming while your at it, don't start saying "well because this one point is suspect we can deny all the rest".
Whatever sources whose puppetry strung you along into this:counte said:
have led you so far wrong for such bad reasons so many times in the past that your continued automatic, provisional,acceptance of their "concerns" as reasonable reflects on you, not them.
Here's an obvious "concern" we haven't seen out of the thug squad, for example: if even important scientific efforts are (or claim to have been) so tight for money and space that they triage their raw data sets, discarding the large and bulky and fragile stuff that seems of no immediate importance (it's been analyzed already, it's not controversial, etc), what does the example say about science funding in general?
I've been involved in a research project that ended with a large part of the data being discarded because there was no place to keep it and no money to archive it. Many museums have been forced to pare down their collections, selling or simply dumping. The world is full of gaps where data sets used to be - including the loss of the genetic base of many crops and domestic animals. Once, as a student, I showed up at my professor's door with the news that my analysis revealed I had been down a wrong path and would have to admit failure on a project, that no relevant conclusions were possible from my data - the first words out of his mouth (he was landscape ecologist) were "but you saved the data, right, you still have it?". I had, of course, and he still has it - but it was just a couple of floppy discs in an easily converted format. Several tons of magnetic tape that needs humidity control and special dust protection, as well as periodic recopying, are a different story.
countezero
Registered Senior Member
I suppose I should read the World Socialist Daily, and then you would take me seriously, right? I could care less, Ice. I pretty much ignore everything you say. What you're engaged in here is what your engage in all the time: Veiled personal attacks. That is, everyone who does not agree with you is dumb or not reading the right things. Resorting to that conveniently allows you to dismiss them and their points and make the argument about their abilities and their sources.
Read the post. It's there.
I am not denying other evidence.
I am not denying anything, as a matter of fact. All I am saying is that if we're talking about warming claims based on temperature schemes and those schemes are potentially under attack, then you have to become concerned with any conclusions based on those schemes. Logic demands it.
Who? ... are you implying this is some kind of socialist conspiracy, because you believe socialist believe in global warming therefor it not true? Hey Hitler believed 2+2=4 therefor its not true?
what is there?
Those conclusions are based on other schemes, so there is no concern about the conclusion, for example where in this argument is that temperature data cited?
The argument stands without that data so there is no concern warranted, I guess there should be concern for the theory of evolution because early fossils and embryo studies were falsified?
Well if that's all you were worried about, then no problem.counte said:
The "temperature schemes" and "warming claims" (assuming you are talking about the various arguments and evidence behind the warnings of danger form CO2 accumulation) have been the concern of many people for quite some time now, and the conclusions drawn have been argued over and investigated for years by hundreds of people in dozens of arenas.
CO2 and Ozone are 2 different molecules the last I heard, and not all molecules react the same under varying circumstances.
This is also going on a tangent course from the main topic.
It's evident that the public has been brainwashed so long now about "human caused" global warming, that it's going to take a while for some people to realize the world isn't flat anymore.
The primary "scientists" that have been pushing the "human caused" CO2 global warming theory have been found to have deliberately tampered data and try to supress skeptics. Kind of reminds me how the Catholic Church tried surpressing Galileo hundreds of years ago.
Maybe not..........
Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill
SYDNEY – Australia's plans for an emissions trading system to combat global warming were scuttled Wednesday in Parliament, handing a defeat to a government that had hoped to set an example at international climate change talks next week.
The Senate, where Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government does not hold a majority, rejected his administration's proposal for Australia to become one of the first countries to install a so-called cap-and-trade system to slash the amount of heat-trapping pollution that industries pump into the air.
The 41-33 vote followed a tumultuous debate in which the conservative main opposition party at first agreed to support a version of the government's bill, then dramatically dumped its leader and switched sides after bitter divisions erupted within the party.
The new leader, Tony Abbott, said Australia should not adopt an emissions trading system before the rest of the world.
"The right time, if ever, to have an ETS is if and when it becomes part of the international trading system and that is not going to happen prior to its adoption in America," he told reporters after the vote
This issue now enjoys front page status:The Senate, where Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government does not hold a majority, rejected his administration's proposal for Australia to become one of the first countries to install a so-called cap-and-trade system to slash the amount of heat-trapping pollution that industries pump into the air.
The 41-33 vote followed a tumultuous debate in which the conservative main opposition party at first agreed to support a version of the government's bill, then dramatically dumped its leader and switched sides after bitter divisions erupted within the party.
The new leader, Tony Abbott, said Australia should not adopt an emissions trading system before the rest of the world.
"The right time, if ever, to have an ETS is if and when it becomes part of the international trading system and that is not going to happen prior to its adoption in America," he told reporters after the vote
The scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”, says The Daily Express.
Professor Ian Plimer, we are told, condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going. Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.
He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over billions of years. “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”
Professor Ian Plimer, we are told, condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going. Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.
He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over billions of years. “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”
Last edited:
It's not just these "scientists" that have been trying to supress skeptics of "human caused" global warming, but much of the news media outlets as well. Even now with this huge story of tainted data, destroyed data, and the supressed scientific skeptics, many large news media outlets (that provided biased news in favor of "human caused" global warming) deliberately refuse to cover this story.
We don't know that it's true, in point of fact, although I admit one would think that the larger outfits should be covering it.
Although then how would we know whether or not Tiger Woods feels genuinely sorry for his actions in his escape from an attacking golf club, or if that beauty queen really made those videos or not? People need to know this stuff.
Although then how would we know whether or not Tiger Woods feels genuinely sorry for his actions in his escape from an attacking golf club, or if that beauty queen really made those videos or not? People need to know this stuff.
countezero
Registered Senior Member
The Times ran a story, but half of its contents essentially said this controversy did not matter and did not change the danger of global warming. I find that position to be amazing, given what little we have seen of what went on at the institution in question.
This news story of the bogus global warming science & data is FAR more significant than Tiger Woods;
heck, even if Tiger Woods announced he was raped by aliens......
insignificant compared to this.
These "scientists" deliberately tainting data, destroying data, and supressing the skeptics views, additionally with news media outlets going along with them with a strong bias, almost goes along the lines of a mass brainwashing of people world wide.
Governments and the UN have been trying to make massive policy changes amounting to trillions of dollars based on these lying "scientists".
heck, even if Tiger Woods announced he was raped by aliens......
insignificant compared to this.These "scientists" deliberately tainting data, destroying data, and supressing the skeptics views, additionally with news media outlets going along with them with a strong bias, almost goes along the lines of a mass brainwashing of people world wide.
Governments and the UN have been trying to make massive policy changes amounting to trillions of dollars based on these lying "scientists".
countezero
Registered Senior Member
A nice alternative perspective.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html
BR is a creationist, so I don't think that argument will help you.
Gold star. You speak the truth.
countezero
Registered Senior Member
The glowing coverage continues. Al Gore could shit on a sidewalk and certain people would say its brilliant.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/12/al-gore-the-poet-laureate-of-climate-change.html
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/12/al-gore-the-poet-laureate-of-climate-change.html
If Al Gore said the sky was blue I guess you would mock him as a lier?
- Status