Global Warming - Are we Being Lied To?

[Moxie]

The emails at least reveal that the scientists really do think it is an issue, and not a completely made up concept as part of a new world order takeover or whatever.

Below you'll see recent temps have been flat and seem to be trending downward for the last decade or so, despite a continual rise in CO2.

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson...

Of the 10 hottest years recorded by NOAA, eight have occurred since 2000, and after this year it will be nine because this year is on track to be the sixth-warmest on record.

AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling - Yahoo! News

 

[guerilla]

The emails at least reveal that the scientists really do think it is an issue, and not a completely made up concept as part of a new world order takeover or whatever.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling

Hunh?

The emails detail a conspiracy to keep AGW skeptics from being published, and to coerce journals not to publish dissenting views.

I wouldn't get my interpretation from the second hand mainstream press.

 

[hellblazer]

The stolen code is more interesting than the emails, which people will try to spin a million different ways.

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

The emails are interesting, because they reveal that much of the peer reviewed evidence is reviewed within a small group of pro-AGW theorists, and then parroted by the IPCC and governments as fact, while opposing views are worked to be kept out of journals and the debate.

It is the most dishonest form of manipulation of science and facts, and it has already cost the public billions, and soon trillions. It should outrage anyone, pro-climate change or not.

You're right, that is really interesting. The whole thing's a con, a hoax, a scam. They peer-review each others propaganda, get dissenters fired, program the models to do whatever they want, and collect their funding from the money-men.

It's a huge con-job.

 

[Moxie]

Hunh?

The emails detail a conspiracy to keep AGW skeptics from being published, and to coerce journals not to publish dissenting views.

I wouldn't get my interpretation from the second hand mainstream press.

Ha, I doubt you yourself have read all the emails. How many scientists have claimed to be rejected by journals as part of this vast conspiracy?

Some police and district attorneys will (wrongly) suppress things that might hurt their case, yet they can still believe the person is guilty.

 

[subigo]

It's sad when really smart people spout the settled "facts" fed to them by corrupt scientist, governments and global corporations.

The "facts" are recorded temperatures from hundreds of sources since the 1850's... if you guys really want my full opinion though, sure.

The argument isn't "is global warming real", because it obviously is. The argument is "is global warming caused by man", which can't be proven one way or the other, hence all of the debate.

Prior to the 1850's, we really have no reliable records on the global temperature. Instead, we use proxies to estimate what it probably was. While things like tree rings and ice core samples provide us with a good idea of the past temperatures, there is still a fairly large margin of error. The margin of error is large enough that any of the estimates can't really be trusted, so we focus on the on factual data that we have available to us (records from the 1850's and up).

However, the estimates we come up with when analyzing tree rings, ice cores, etc... are reliable enough to show that the Earth has been swinging back and forth between warm and cold periods (which was kicked off the last time the ocean currents were changed, due to being cut off by two continents converging). We are still in the warming/cooling period as far as anyone can tell, which means another "ice age" could happen at anytime (and by anytime I'm talking thousands of years).

So we know that the Earth is in the middle of a warming/cooling period, but does that account for the past 150+ years of increasing temperatures? It's hard to tell. The only thing we do know is that greenhouse gases do get trapped in the lower atmosphere and that we do produce enough of it to be recorded.

Ultimately the question has to come down to this: Are greenhouse gases good for the Earth? Obviously the answer is no. And that's where the debate gets retarded. People want to argue that we should continue to pump out greenhouse gases because there is no proof that man causes global warming... those are two completely different things and when you lump them together, you look like a moron.

/majored in geology for 4 years

 

[guerilla]

Ha, I doubt you yourself have read all the emails.

That's a red herring.

The question isn't if I have read the emails. That's just a weak attempt to discredit me without addressing the facts of the matter.

The real question is if there is malfeasance, and even George Monbiot, one of the most diehard AGW promoters in Britain admits there has been, then why are you not outraged? Why are people still making appeals to science, when it is obvious that the science is not settled? Why are people not outraged about the lies they have been told? That the IPCC data now appears to have been forged in the very models they claim predict future warming?

It is the pinnacle of hypocrisy to appeal to the science before these emails were released, and then when the scientists admit they have been fudging the numbers and censoring dissent, refuse to acknowledge that fact. Either you believe in objective science or you don't.

I'm going back to work. Nothing gets settled in any of these threads, and I feel disgusted with myself for debating topics as a layman, with other laymen, while losing out on income I could have been making. Warming or not, I intend to have enough money to buy sunscreen in all climate scenarios.

 

[Moxie]

That's a red herring.

The question isn't if I have read the emails. That's just a weak attempt to discredit me without addressing the facts of the matter.

That was in response to your "weak attempt" comment about the mainstream news.

The real question is if there is malfeasance, and even George Monbiot, one of the most diehard AGW promoters in Britain admits there has been, then why are you not outraged?

Were you also outraged by the cases of editing and suppression against them?

Political pressure on scientists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That the IPCC data now appears to have been forged in the very models they claim predict future warming?

The question would be how much data and I wouldn't necessarily rely on someone that is already biased to interpret the leaked documents. The dude in the video you posted above also has a video about "militia recruitment" and is youtube friends with Alex Jones.

It is the pinnacle of hypocrisy to appeal to the science before these emails were released, and then when the scientists admit they have been fudging the numbers and censoring dissent, refuse to acknowledge that fact.

It's acknowledged, but it doesn't mean to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[_poto_]

The "facts" are recorded temperatures from hundreds of sources since the 1850's... if you guys really want my full opinion though, sure.

The argument isn't "is global warming real", because it obviously is. The argument is "is global warming caused by man", which can't be proven one way or the other, hence all of the debate.

Prior to the 1850's, we really have no reliable records on the global temperature. Instead, we use proxies to estimate what it probably was. While things like tree rings and ice core samples provide us with a good idea of the past temperatures, there is still a fairly large margin of error. The margin of error is large enough that any of the estimates can't really be trusted, so we focus on the on factual data that we have available to us (records from the 1850's and up).

However, the estimates we come up with when analyzing tree rings, ice cores, etc... are reliable enough to show that the Earth has been swinging back and forth between warm and cold periods (which was kicked off the last time the ocean currents were changed, due to being cut off by two continents converging). We are still in the warming/cooling period as far as anyone can tell, which means another "ice age" could happen at anytime (and by anytime I'm talking thousands of years).

So we know that the Earth is in the middle of a warming/cooling period, but does that account for the past 150+ years of increasing temperatures? It's hard to tell. The only thing we do know is that greenhouse gases do get trapped in the lower atmosphere and that we do produce enough of it to be recorded.

Ultimately the question has to come down to this: Are greenhouse gases good for the Earth? Obviously the answer is no. And that's where the debate gets retarded. People want to argue that we should continue to pump out greenhouse gases because there is no proof that man causes global warming... those are two completely different things and when you lump them together, you look like a moron.

The tree ring data was cherry picked to show warming. The full data set is flat.
More Yamal tree ring temperature data: this data is flat as roadkill Watts Up With That?

If you're going to throw out the proxy data, then you really need to throw out all the tree ring data and ice core data too. Really if you're going to be that damn picky, you should throw out everything except the satellite data.

As far as the next ice age goes. Yes, we have already past the Holocene Maximum of our present interglacial period and are due for the start of the next ice age sometime in the future. There is likely nothing we can do to stop the coming of the next ice age.

The 'greenhouse gasses' we humans are really so small a percentage of the atmosphere as to be of no consequence to the vastness of the planet. One large volcanic eruption will put more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than all of human activity. When put into perspective, we are really tiny insignificant creatures on the face of a large planet.

Now, I'm not against protecting the environment. I would like to see us reduce and eventually eliminate pollution eventually. I just don't buy the bullshit that the global warming people are selling.

/majored in geology for 4 years

Ahh, geology, not climatology then.

 

[xentech]

Also Britain was something like 75% forest.

Lol, so what? The only reason it's not now is because of civilisation.

 

[ricdes]

lolol, as soon as i read the thread title i thought: hmm, guerilla and hellblazer are gonna be discussing for sure. and i was damn right.

 

[papajohn56]

Science is only as impartial as the funding behind it.

this got politicized by the environmentalism movement - it's really impossible to politicize the spin of a muon or behavior of certain bosons