Thousands and Thousands of Scientists Can't be Behind a Hoax(AGW), Right?

The OP is extremely long, so I will reply based on the part I read. The part where decades of raw temperature data has been lost.

If the raw temperature data has been lost, would this also not disprove Global Warming? Oh well, time to start from scratch

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I would take AGW more seriously if it was based on hard data, and not models fueled by cherry picked data. But it is not. A computer model is not hard science. It is speculation and theory, and thus, not something I am going to jump on the bandwagon for, especially when counter studies and data have been made and presented.

A lot of people think like you do... and no offense, but you don't know what you are talking about.

AGW isn't based on models and cherry picked data. AGW is based on solid and well established laws of physics. The greenhouse effect is a real physical effect that CO2 and many other gases cause.. Another fact is that we are increasing greenhouse gases (mainly CO2) at an alarming rate, which is increasing the greenhouse effect, and at some point in the future will cause the climate to change, and get warmer. AGW is a proven fact based on physical laws, and there is no longer a debate on its existence.

Models and data are not used to prove something... they are only used to predict something. The models and data you talk about are only needed to predict what will happen in the future, and to help us prepare for that future, and give us a time scale. The models and data are not supposed to be used to prove to you or anyone that AGW is real... because that has already been proven by physics.

Once you understand that, it makes all this bickering (this topic) about cherry picked, and wrong, and or falsified data a huge joke.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Well, it's an illogical rhetorical appeal to numbers regardless how you cut it.
I have heard multiple times about how thousands of scientists believe this or that to be true so it must be true...

We haven't gotten all that far from when we believed people who told us there were big people in the sky watching us.
And this REALLY shows it.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Ok.
So show me a large increase of global atmospheric Co2.
Not Co2 emmissions mind you, but the amount of Co2 staying in the air.
And don't want to hear anything about ice core samples.
Those are only as old as the ice caps, which geologically speaking are new.
And are really only relevant as far as studying the relatively recent Ice Age.

Then explain, exactly, why thus far the effect seems to be the opposite of warming.
Or why the predictions of doom and gloom hurricane seasons have never really come to fruitition.

Which, you cannot really do I'll concede.
It is after all a large system with many many many variables, many more of which we do not completely understand.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I just wanted to stop in and say thank you ver so kindly Electric Universe!!

I have always understood this on a very simple level.

That of rich people convincing poor people that the destruction of the Earth is their fault! There is simply to many of them and we are going to have to tax you now in order to save yourselves! After the whole Al Gore fiasco, I pretty much stopped paying any attention to this farce! What is disturbing is how through various media outlets, they have made anyone who does not believe in man made climate change to be dimwits who can not understand what is taught in college! You know those very peasants who are the problem!

It is great to have this information that has helped me greatly in understanding the true depth of Climategate! I hope that there are many more emails hacked in a variety of industries! For we need the secrecy to end!

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I would take AGW more seriously if it was based on hard data, and not models fueled by cherry picked data. But it is not. A computer model is not hard science. It is speculation and theory, and thus, not something I am going to jump on the bandwagon for, especially when counter studies and data have been made and presented.

A lot of people think like you do... and no offense, but you don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, Skadi_the_Evil_Elf does actually.

AGW is based on models that 10 years ago, predicted a future that did not occur. Every prediction fell on its face. The whole basis of a model is its ability to accurately predict something repeatedly. It is not hard science, it is an engineering and mathematical algorithm that is only as good as the formulas it uses and the data you feed it. The hard science is the observation and measurement, not just interpretation.

AGW isn't based on models and cherry picked data. AGW is based on solid and well established laws of physics. The greenhouse effect is a real physical effect that CO2 and many other gases cause.. Another fact is that we are increasing greenhouse gases (mainly CO2) at an alarming rate, which is increasing the greenhouse effect, and at some point in the future will cause the climate to change, and get warmer. AGW is a proven fact based on physical laws, and there is no longer a debate on its existence.

You posted not a single source or reference for your claims. Please describe in more detail, these physical laws you speak of and the evidence to support your other statements.

If you, or anyone else could show everything you said to be true, that person would be a billionaire. Anthropogenic global warming is based on the THEORY that humans are causing the temps to change. So far, that has NOT been proven and is still plenty disputed. I can cite you a dozen or more papers that make excellent arguments against the theory. It will be a theory unless, and until, it can be successfully predicted. That's what models are for, to predict, and not a single one has been able to do so. Ask yourself why based on my previous statement.

If you haven't noticed, they call it "climate change" now for a reason... because the anthropogenic part has fallen apart. Now it's just "climate change", and since the planet has warmed more in some places, and cooled more in others, they can't really call it "global warming" anymore, because it's not just warming by itself.

Plugging CO2 into the models can't explain what is being observed anymore. There is more to it.

Models and data are not used to prove something... they are only used to predict something. The models and data you talk about are only needed to predict what will happen in the future, and to help us prepare for that future, and give us a time scale. The models and data are not supposed to be used to prove to you or anyone that AGW is real... because that has already been proven by physics.

Physics doesn't prove AGW. If models can't predict, with accuracy, what will happen, that means that the understanding that scientists use those models for is WRONG - IE - DISPROVEN. It doesn't matter how "close" they come. Close only matters with hand grenades and horse shoes. It can either predict it every time with the proper set of variables, or it can't. There is no in between with it.

Once you understand that, it makes all this bickering (this topic) about cherry picked, and wrong, and or falsified data a huge joke.

No it doesn't. It makes it even more important to have the right data.

You don't seem to understand that the models are designed to make the climate very sensitive to CO2, so when they change the amount, it causes the models to vary significantly.

You have a misunderstanding about what models are used for and how they are used. You have an even bigger misunderstanding of why AGW is not a falsifiable hypothesis (can't be proven OR disproven) and randomly follows the scientific method except within very narrow fields of study.

Tell me... do you notice anything in this picture?



Notice how the 1990-1995 (red line) appears to be slightly HIGHER than the 1980-1985 segment, when very clearly in the RAW DATA (the black line), there is a much higher spike in that time frame.

If I gave you JUST the red line in the graph, you would NEVER know about that spike, which could be of critical importance if you are being asked something like "what was the peak in the last 50 years?" - your answer on the red line, would be "somewhere around 1992-1993", but if you were looking at the raw data, it would be 1982-1983.

This is a real-life example of how PROXIES are determined. They are completely based on smoothing, and are used EVERYWHERE in climate models. In fact, any temperature data or CO2 prior to the 1850's (and even after) comes from PROXIES, not from actual measurements or observations.

So then... what happens when you feed that same data into a climate model? How can that model possibly be correct and predict with any accuracy, what would happen with fictional data?

More importantly, how are you OK with your politicians and representatives making decisions and policies based on those same models that use fictitious data?

No offense, but you should try hopping the fence from time to time and see what the other side has to say, regardless of which side you decide to take, and regardless of the issue at hand.

~Namaste

The West is engaged in a very wide ranging spying and information extraction racket that has given it control on the leading technologies.

The West does not need a hoax created by thousands of scientists. Typically the most crucial work is done by small teams and these teams can be politically and physically controlled. Most other people just follow.

If you control the finances, you can control who is going to be running the labs. The Chief scientists can in turn control his juniors. This is how it goes. The West works on a 'club' approach where participation is by invitation only. If you are an outsider, you will be ridiculed.

Unfortunately in these times of over-population and shrinking natural resources, workers leverage over their masters has evaporated thus giving the masters unlimited power. This has boosted the master's ego and created a make-believe world where the masters feel like God.

Don't worry, the real God has strange ways of putting man back on earth. Everything comes crashing back after it goes up. The laws of nature apply to paupers and princes alike.

Yeah, right, I'm going to believe the director of a fossil fuel company whose agenda is to push for continued increases in the use of the most damaging of all the fossil fuels, the burning of coal:

Steve McIntyre (born c. 1947) is a Canadian mining exploration company director, a former minerals prospector and semi-retired mining consultant whose work has included statistical analysis. He is best known as the founder and editor of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is most prominent as a critic of the temperature record of the past 1000 years and the data quality of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

a reply to: defcon5

Well, just because he has an agenda does not mean he is totally incorrect.
Everyone has one to some point or another.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows
Yeah, just look at China, coal is having no effect on the climate there:


Great stuff...
Lets burn more of it.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows
www.esrl.noaa.gov...

Grant bludging academics always act like this.

People will protect their "expert" status and future employment as an expert at all costs. Even that of the truth.

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows
Yeah, just look at China, coal is having no effect on the climate there:

Great stuff...
Lets burn more of it.

So even if the west does carbon credits, higher taxes, goes "green", it won't really matter then, will it.

a reply to: defcon5

Nice strawman you have there.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows
Yeah, just look at China, coal is having no effect on the climate there:

Great stuff...
Lets burn more of it.

So even if the west does carbon credits, higher taxes, goes "green", it won't really matter then, will it.

then i vote you as ambassador to Australia to get these damn politicians to remove this carbon tax...before they invent a sunlight tax

a reply to: beezzer

Nothing really matters,
Anyone can see,
Nothing really matters,
Nothing really matters to me.

Anyway the wind blows.


So screw it all. Do what you like.... Good plan.

a reply to: Phage

I get it now.

The planet is fracked unless we enact a one-world-government.

That way we can control ALL carbon output.

a reply to: beezzer
No.
A one world government could do no more than what we have now. Governments can't do sh**.

We're frelled for the short term, no matter what. For the long term, unless we stop and think (thinking is haarrrd, change is harrrrd) we are also frelled.

Nothing really matters...

Good plan.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: beezzer
No.
A one world government could do no more than what we have now.

We're frelled for the short term, no matter what. For the long term, unless we stop and think (thinking is haarrrd, change is harrrrd) we are also frelled.

So we can't control what other countries do.

Yet according to the climate-doomies, we're screwed unless we do something right now because we have like, three hours left until the polar caps freeze or melt or something!

So lets raise taxes and wee ourselves for no apparent reason!

a reply to: beezzer

Expansion into space would be a better option imho.