Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
Nope, this is what he said:"The positive trend is quite close to the significance level"
Really, this is what he said in another interview: But I stand 100% behind the science. I did not manipulate or fabricate any data, and I look forward to proving that to the Sir Muir Russell inquiry."
Unless you have a different meaning of wanning this isn't it.
You didn't answer the question.
He will be.
I'll bet on it.
See, even you just tried to manipulate the facts like all the other deniers do.:lol:
This is what was submitted in your post:
"Prof Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995-2009. This trend (0.12 per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level."
As far as the comment being "quite close" - what exactly does that mean? Could that also (indirectly) suggest that the the is (quite close) significance in their NOT being any anthropogenic global warming? Is it "quite close" at the 80% level? I'd imagine that it is entirely accurate at the 50% level too.
That's the beauty of stats, eh? You can make them say whatever you wish.
Fabrication of data is not the issue. Jones, in his (own) emails condemned himself via his admittance (of him or his peers) in terms of the data he deliberately omitted or the tricks that were purposefully engineered into the models to specifically alter the results.
Jones may be able to truthfully declare that he did not fabricate data, but his actions had an equally, if not greater, negative impact.
He will not rejoin East Anglia in his former capacity nor will he represent the IPCC/UN ever again.
I did answer the question (about media treatment of pro-GW coverage). That faction has lost all credibility and they are be relegated to having their views paraphrased.
In terms of the waning support - take a look around. There is less support and much more critical analysis of global warming theory, let alone more and more allegations and investigations of fraud, misrepresentations, etc as every week passes.
The writing id on the wall. It's up to you to read it.
It is that simple, Nothing in nature is complex once you accept the fact that you cannot change it. Maybe postpone.but never stop.
It's not farts that are the problem, it's burps, and that's with ruminants. Mastodons were not ruminants.
And for the last time, nobody said there was only one way to change the climate. The closest group that would come to a conclusion like that are the lame brained fools who think that a talking point like
is a valid and logical point.
Should we tally all the volleys that have sailed over yours?
No, I prefer accurate statements, and relevant references. If that makes me selective then I would suggest that you ought to try narrowing your view a bit.
Point 1
My point is the IPCC is a synthesis of the body of climate knowledge. I think it's far more likely that Monbiot had begun to make his own interpretations and impressions before the IPCC came along. Still, this is all conjecture. You talk very confidently about something you have no valid reason to be confident about.
That's my point. You're just the next fellow on the soapbox with no substance.
I asked you for references, and you gave me links to amateur web sites probably made in someones basement. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else, but I don't tend to follow all the conversations in these threads. Just the ones made by those who try to sell their wares with the highest confidence that they have the best grip on reality.
People like you. If an impressionable youngster happens to find this thread, at least they'll know that this fellow is full of $hit.
OK, lets address it. How many forms of data storage do you think have been used since 1850? I don't happen to think it's reasonable that they should have to store forms of data that are no longer used.
As long as it's recorded. It is recorded, they just don't have the originals.
NASA's data is all public. Go here to get it.
No, you're just parroting something you thought was clever that you read on the internet. The data is available. You can also go to the national meteorological services in most countries and download the data for yourself.
Have at er. Slim chance that you or those peddling said stories will do so. It doesn't sell well amongst their sheeple.
I find it particularly interesting that you think I need such a thought experiment. It hasn't yet occurred to you that I indeed know that there are multiple ways to perturb our climate.
I find it even more interesting that you think the young age of man- compared to Earth's history- and our influence is actually relevant. It's not.
You obviously have not recognized that yet, and that is very telling.
Human activities have increased the production of greenhouse gases. A portion of these greenhouse gases are taken up by Earth's carbon cycle, but the production overwhelms the cycle, such that about 40% of the greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere. Thus the atmospheric concentration rises.
This makes the atmosphere more opaque to outgoing long-wave radiation. The result is that the atmosphere is out of radiative balance; more energy is retained in the lower atmosphere than is going out. The Earth warms.
If the warming were caused by more incoming solar radiation, then the whole atmosphere would warm as the radiation passes through, and back out again. What we find in reality is that the troposphere has warmed, and the stratosphere has cooled. The satellites that measure the atmosphere with microwaves (MSU data used by UAH and RSS) all show this to be true. This is only possible when the lower atmosphere is trapping radiation, preventing it from escaping to space and heating the upper atmosphere as it goes.
What we observe is consistent with radiative physics. We know that in the early part of the 20th century, it was a mixture of increased solar energy, and anthropogenic forcing which caused the uptick in global temperature. Now, we know that it is mostly man. If you had read the attribution studies that I posted, which have been well received (based on the number of citations for those papers) then you might have a better understanding of this.
My theory is that you don't want to understand. You just want to come on here and spew crap about emails, supposed frauds, and errors. Well, none of that will dissolve the explanation above that I gave you. This can all be verified with public data, if you are competent enough to find it.
Now, until you or anyone else can come up with a consistent explanation for why the Earth climate is behaving the way it is, one which satisfies the above conditions, and explains why radiative physics is all wrong (those damn laws of thermodynamics! Best of luck!) then you're just going to have to bite the bullet and admit that there is currently only one explanation that works. That, or you can continue to bury your head in the sand. Your choice.
I'm thinking it's a slim chance that you come up for air.
Accurate statements?.. I guess that leaves out the entire body of knowledge from East Anglia and therefore much of the foundation of your argument.
Wrong, this point was about Monbiot parroting the IPCC/UN's trademark talking points and cliche sentiments. Those elements were the brain-child of the 2 aforementioned organizations. That said, if Monbiot was relying on those points (again verbatim) then clearly he did base his opinion on the IPCC/UN.
What I find intensely interesting is that you throw around words like conjecture and substance when disecting other people's opinion and yet your entire declaration that Monbiot may have conceived these ideas is not only sheer speculation but also deviod of any particulars that would indicate that he had anything more than a coffee-shop discussion about the weather that day.
Physician; heal thyself
First off, i choose the first couple of links relating to the subject that I wanted to employ to highlight the folly in your logic. I assumed, incorrectly, that you would take the overall gist of the topic and apply it to the overall discussion.
This was obviously a mistake in that it appears that you are incapable of independent or original thought. Clearly you are more comfortable in reiterating the ideas/thoughts of others and lack the capacity or interest in challenging logic.
Are you blaming the data storage systems then? In my view, the data existed just fine right up to the point where scientisits that held opposing views requested the raw data wherein it was magically lost.
Considering the degree of fraud perpetuated by these folks, it is realistic to assume that the data can no longer be considered pure.
So, what do you figure is the reason that certain groups had to compel (unsuccessful to date in some cases) NASA to release the info through thefreedom of information act?
Do you think they dothis for fun?
This quote relates to my belief that the data was lost or witheld as the IPCC/UN/East Anglia do not wish to have their fraud exposed.
Sadly for you, the people that initiated this are the "scientists" (I use that word very loosely) at IPCC, the UN and at East Anglia. they alone are the authors (quite literally) of their own demise.
Only to the willfully blind and the fanatics are they NOT covering up their transgressions... I did not need to read this on the internet to come to this conclusion.
And yet, there are no models nor any feasible explanation that can isolate humanity as "the cause" AND explain the past occurances.
You're making my argument for me.
You point to some applicable physical principles that are in play and affect the system. These are but a tiny fraction of the variables. While what you state is reasonable, it is woefully incomplete in terms of assessing causation.
You can only extrapolate so far before the logic morphs into the sad fraud that we get from the IPCC's of the world.
Unike yourself, I never stated, nor suggested that I have the answer. However, I do know that it is much more complicated than anything that has been offered to date and any declarations similar to what we've seen from the pro-GW groups is nothing more than a grab for fame, power and or money.
So? Here's a different opinion, also backed up by data:Pacific Ocean - sea levels falling
Pacific Ocean - Sea levels falling See Dec 2009 update below
4 Jul 05 - The tiny country of Tuvalu is not cooperating with global warming models. In the early 1990s, scientists warned that the Pacific coral atoll of nine islands - only 12 feet above sea level at their highest point - would vanish within decades, swamped by rising seas. Sea levels were supposedly rising at the rate of 1.5 inches per year.Understandably, the residents of Tuvalu were concerned, so Tuvalu's official meteorological agency began measuring sea levels.
Ten years later they were shocked to discover that sea levels had fallen 2.5 inches during that time. Similar sea-level declines have been recorded in Nauru and the Solomon Islands. (London Telegraph, 6 Aug 2000)
Tuvalu somehow “lost” those record, and has started the measurement process again.
Update:
[FONT="]
Tuvalu sea levels STILL falling
[/FONT] [FONT="] 4 Dec 09 - All this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, says Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. [/FONT][FONT="]When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, Mörner launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.[/FONT][FONT="]Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. (italics added)Sea levels are also falling in the Maldives! (in the Indian Ocean)
[/FONT] If there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner. His findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
See Rising sea levels 'the greatest lie ever told'
See Sea levels are falling!
Sea levels are also falling in the Arctic Ocean
See Arctic Sea Level Falling
ScienceDirect - Global and Planetary Change : Sea-level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands
The data was lost before Phil Jones was the Director. That was back in the 1980's...before FOI requests.
Willful ignorance.
For your education:
The Biggest Control Knob- Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History
When the data was lost is irrelevant. Seeing how East Anglia officials are clearly not fit to manage the data, certainly it is unfathomable to expect those same incompetents to develop any complex theories or models.
Thanks for the link from Richard Alley.. I won't bother to watch it as I've heard enough BS from the IPCC related groups. I'm certain that his is simply more of the same redundant whitewash we've come to expect from the IPCC supporting groups.
I notice that you have nothing to say regarding NASA, Monbiot or feasible explanations/modeling.
The sin of omission Tonington. That sentence of yours is rank idealism. You did not mention that no competing theory was allowed and no mention was made of huge financial and political manipulations. The IPCC is a synthesis of much diverse knowledge, real and invented, honestly, very little of it could be classed as knowledge. The smallest component would be good science.
Last edited:
Rubbish. No organization on Earth is perfect. Mistakes happen. You can't disregard their science just because they have made mistakes. If there are mistakes in the investigations, then that is another thing altogether.
Pathetic.
If you're going to disregard everything that the IPCC might touch on in their work, then you have nothing constructive to add to this discussion.
I already gave you a link to NASA data. You can get all of their station data at the GIStemp website. Monbiot is a journalist, the only thing I had to say is that you don't know anything about how he came to his stance on any issue. Just as I don't know how you came to be so closed minded and parrot flawed information.
I gave you the only feasible explanation. What you choose to do with that information is up to you. But don't try to tell me that I haven't had anything to say on these issues. If you paid attention and actually read the links I provide, you might gain some understanding.
I think you and I are about done now.
Still doesn't say "little" that was your manipulation.
Lol, you still hang onto that word trick eh?
Too funny
Like I said...wanna bet?
Still doesn't answer why you again manipulated the facts.....I already know why so no need to respond.
For or against? So you acknowledge that journalist trying to make a buck off climate denial are frauds?
Good.
You said Phil Jones had wanning support....wrong.
As for the public this is true but none of them are climatologists and are being manipulated by the denial industry which is funded by carbon producers and bad journalists....something you already admitted to.
The writing is in the science....the real science and it's laughing in your face.:lol:
Btw, here is an interesting book for you to read.
Take care.;-)
- Status