Climate change expert sentenced to 32 months for fraud

originally posted by: Sunwolf
Seems to me the Global Warming Alarmists are getting desperate as outlined below.



wattsupwiththat.com...



The more they insult others and call people idiots and stupid,the more desperate they become.

Nothing worse than a true believer,the whole Global warming hysteria smacks of fanaticism.

It smacks of a whole lot of misdirection as well, one can watch how data was collected and analyzed, and see that it has morphed into a religious entity complete with guidelines and policies.

Why ??

Too make sure no one EVER really knows what is going on....mixed with a whole lot of other stupid agendas.

Sorry, we cannot trust the WELL MEANING SCIENTISTS, to make proper calculations when the system they are in you have to pledge allegiance to more than to the truth.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE. So...lets review. Climate change is NOT a fact. If and when it becomes a fact, then let me know..

It is exhausting to see people interject 5 tons of BS into one millimeter of doubt.

Climate Change is statistically, scientifically, historically a 99.9% demonstrable..happening trend.

It is technically NOT A "FACT" that I won't win the lottery tomorrow...but examining all the data, trends and statistics I am confident enough that I won't win the lottery that I will still go to work in the morning.

Jesus...Climate change IS happening.

Dang...When I read your title I though AL Gore was now wearing prison orange.
Guess i will have to wait a little longer.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Sunwolf
Seems to me the Global Warming Alarmists are getting desperate as outlined below.



wattsupwiththat.com...



The more they insult others and call people idiots and stupid,the more desperate they become.

Nothing worse than a true believer,the whole Global warming hysteria smacks of fanaticism.

It smacks of a whole lot of misdirection as well, one can watch how data was collected and analyzed, and see that it has morphed into a religious entity complete with guidelines and policies.

Why ??

Too make sure no one EVER really knows what is going on....mixed with a whole lot of other stupid agendas.

Sorry, we cannot trust the WELL MEANING SCIENTISTS, to make proper calculations when the system they are in you have to pledge allegiance to more than to the truth.

Sh*& is melting, droughts are happening, Sea levels have risen...this is not theory anymore.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: jrod

The 2nd link brings me to wattsupwiththat.com, a site that is full of opinion pieces against the 97%+ consensus but again does not have any science or data to back up their claims.

Well there is very good reason to question that so called 97% consensus, it's clearly far too high to be a true consensus on such controversial science, and when one looks into the methodology used, the calculations are clearly biased to give a higher percentage. The consensus is much lower than 97% when you do the calculations properly. The following video goes into detail on this topic:

The 3rd link brings us to Ivar Giaever another person recognized by the scientific community has a misinformer.

It seems to me that any scientist who questions global warming research is instantly classified as a misinformer, so it hardly means much for a global warming skeptic to be ostracized by the scientific community. But in this particular case I think you are wrong, Ivar Giaever may be considered a crack pot by many climate change researchers but not the scientific community as a whole. He has made important contributions to science and even won a Nobel Prize for his work on electron tunnelling.

He is absolutely correct when he says global warming is becoming a new religion. People have such unwavering faith in such unclear science and it's not healthy at all. I think people have a tendency to latch onto global warming because it makes them them feel good, like they are protecting planet if they believe in global warming, and the people who don't believe must be evil or careless fools who don't know enough about science. They get some sort of self-righteous ego boost from it and then adopt a holier than thou attitude against anyone who stands on the opposite side of the debate.

Great post and great video CO. Brutal is the word. The 97 % percent was always a ludicrous argument...to a thinking person anyway.

a reply to: Indigo5

Climate Change is statistically, scientifically, historically a 99.9% demonstrable..happening trend.

Breaking news (insert speedy dramatic music) - Scientists have now concluded...from the recent studies that...well...Climate change has been happening on this planet since...well...approximately 4-5 billion years.

Thank you for that Jim.

Now back to sports.

a reply to: jrod

Awesome a youtube video that is merely another biased opinion, thank you.

The 97% consensus has been independently confirmed by a number of different approaches and lines of evidence.

It's not merely a biased opinion when he presents facts and references to back up what he's saying. I read that skepticalscience article and they don't seem to discuss many of the criticisms made in the video I posted. But lets just say the 97% consensus is totally accurate, that doesn't automatically prove man-made global warming is occurring or that it threatens our survival, it proves that 97% of the research done has been focused on linking global warming to human actions, which isn't surprising when almost no research funding goes to scientists who are tasked with finding alternative reasons for global warming. Of course they are going to reach the conclusions they want when anyone is instantly labeled as a "denialist" the moment they do anything which goes against the status quo, and they are no longer considered scientists even if they have made great contributions in the past.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: jrod

Awesome a youtube video that is merely another biased opinion, thank you.

The 97% consensus has been independently confirmed by a number of different approaches and lines of evidence.

It's not merely a biased opinion when he presents facts and references to back up what he's saying. I read that skepticalscience article and they don't seem to discuss many of the criticisms made in the video I posted. But lets just say the 97% consensus is totally accurate, that doesn't automatically prove man-made global warming is occurring or that it threatens our survival, it proves that 97% of the research done has been focused on linking global warming to human actions, which isn't surprising when almost no research funding goes to scientists who are tasked with finding alternative reasons for global warming. Of course they are going to reach the conclusions they want when anyone is instantly labeled as a "denialist" the moment they do anything which goes against the status quo, and they are no longer considered scientists even if they have made great contributions in the past.

100% of scientists once believed we couldn't escape the Van Allen Belt either. They also once believed that we couldn't go over 35 MPH without brain damage, or being unable to breathe.

Thank you for a voice of reason. I get so tired of people claiming that nearly every scientist in the world believes in man made global warming.

Climate Change is 100% real. Let me first state that. No denying it, it's happening.

It's been happening for as long as the Earth has had an atmosphere.

Do we affect the climate? I'm sure we do, but it's negligible. The Earth is changing, and will continue to do so for all of time.

We have NEVER had a stable climate. We've had semi stable periods, but they never last.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder
That YouTube video does not offer any evidence that opposes human induced change.
That is cute how all you deniers haves teamed up to agree with each other without actually offering and actual evidence. If I didn't know better I would say there is a bit of consensus cracking going on here.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Awesome a youtube video that is merely another biased opinion, thank you.

The 97% consensus has been independently confirmed by a number of different approaches and lines of evidence.

Ivar Giavar is not a climate scientist, he has admitted he knows little about climate science. In fact he is supported by the Heartland Institute.

Also the Antarctic Ice sheet may take up a little more area, however we have observed that the actual sheet is getting thinner. Regardless, on this planet we are observing a net loss in our ice caps.
While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica has been losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.

I will repost this so it won't be lost to topic dilution and thread drift.

Ok after watching this video made by Cook himself, it has become very obvious to me how they are able to reach this 97% consensus. In the video Cook presents 3 different studies/surveys which each purport to produce a 97% consensus. The first is a survey conducted in 2009 at the University of Illinois. He doesn't mention how many scientists were surveyed but presumably it wasn't a very large number if it was conducted at a single University. Never the less the 97% consensus can be seen in this chart which is based on the results of that survey:



I found this to be a very interesting chart because it highlights the fact that the consensus only exists among climate change researchers, people who are paid to find proof of human caused global warming. When I look at that chart what I see is an almost religious faith in unproven theories. The other scientists seem to have a healthy skepticism but the climate scientists have a near perfect agreement, which smacks to me of a cult-like belief in unproven notions, fueled by government grant money aimed at reaching specific conclusions. They have created a culture where any climate scientist who doesn't agree with the pre-conceived conclusions about global warming is stripped of their credentials and told they are in a state of denial, no wonder it's hard to find skeptics among such a culture.

Cook then goes onto talk about a 2nd study conducted in 2010 in which they analyzed public statements about global warming made by scientists. He doesn't mention how many statements were collected, he just says "a number" of public statements were collected, so again I'm assuming the number wasn't very impressive. Then they threw out every single statement except for those statements made by climate scientists actively publishing papers. And surprise surprise, again they seemed to have found a 97% consensus among climate scientists.

Cook then goes onto talk about his own 2013 study, and he does mention a number this time, he says it was the most comprehensive analysis done to date, with over 12,000 papers analyzed. And as we know they basically ignored any inconclusive studies and did a very haphazard job categorizing the papers. It's not surprising that they would also reach a 97% consensus when what they basically did was analyze papers written by climate scientists, the first two surveys already proved there is a high degree of consensus among climate scientists.

a reply to: jrod

No, I don't think you read the OP. He has been losing faith for a while. This is just one more incident.

a reply to: jrod

well..skeptical science is also biased in opinion. See how that works. It's because I can say it...it is so.

They have no evidence of causality between CO2 emissions and temperature "data" (which is highly dubious due to various shenanigans with collecting and interpreting data). It is just as reasonable to assume...which all this is...an assumption...that increased CO2 is due to increase in temperature.

What SS only proves...that you can twist numbers to suit any purpose. But numbers are not proof of causality. Prediction models have only reaffirmed that fact.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

97%+ of the papers written this century on the topi suggest that human activity is causing the climate change but it is obvious that you simply ignored the link I provided that breaks down how they get the 97%.

The reality of human induced climate change is intuitively obvious to anyone with open eyes and capable of observing all the terra changes man has caused.

All we have here is the usual suspects trying to cast doubt on climate change.

A Youtube video with some tool's emotional and politically tainted plea against the consensus is the best you can come up with as your evidence??? That is pathetic!!!

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

the thing is CO...these other scientist that are "ignorant" of the subject of climate change are considered as not having a position since it's not their field, and are therefore irrelevant to the discussion. It's called statistics.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

No it does not work that way.

The aware posters know the usual distraction methods that happen in these heated discussions. Skeptical Science provides links to ACTUAL studies and papers to back up their claims. Wattsupwiththat provides opinion pieces and often misleading and straight up dishonest charts and such to back up their claims.

Regardless if one can grasp the concept of radiative forcing and how that relates to CO2, we have observed a substantial increase of CO2 as a result of industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels.

a reply to: jrod

it is obvious that you simply ignored the link I provided that breaks down how they get the 97%.

I just posted my analysis of the 3 different 97% studies so I'm not sure how you think I ignored them.

The reality of human induced climate change is intuitively obvious to anyone with open eyes and capable of observing all the terra changes man has caused.

Terra changes are not equatable to global warming, they are caused by the things I mentioned earlier, immediate problems we should be worrying more about (deforestation, oil spills, etc).

Ivar, the scientist with a connection to the Heartland Institute is pretty much a quack in terms of climate science. I provided a link that shows how out of touch he is.

Also if you want to really read up on what the Heartland Institute is really about check out this old thread.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Yet they are great changes. One fall back argument you guys always like to revert back to is that human impact is not significant enough to change our climate and how we should not be so arrogant to think such. Now when one can see the great changes we have made to the terra, we can make the logical connection that something like changing the carbon cycle will have a butterfly effect in terms of changes in this planet's climate.

To understand all this, one has to understand the concept of things like radiant forcing and residence time. It is obvious that those of you who act as cheerleaders of doubt to the overwhelming scientific consensus do NOT understand such concepts.