IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming

I think most peple on this blog and many others who also have a brain are convinced that this "CARBON-DUNNIT' stuff is fake. So, with respect, re-affirming the same probably ain't gonna achieve much.

Just a suggestion: let's hear now from all you bloggers out there about WHY. WHY is this scam being perpetrated?

If I may throw in my own two-penn'orth....

In a nutshell - all roads lead to ROME.

I'm not talking about the Vatican - by this I mean that all major global initiatives lead ultimately to the same thing - a 1984-style global superstate governed by the usual scum-bag crime families that humanity has had to endure over the at least the last few hundred years.

And the "CARBON-DUNNIT" scam is a stepping stone in that direction. IMO the sub-agenda here is to bring down a major threat to these scum-bags: you and me in the West.

"CARBON-DUNNIT" - ruthlessly applied to the West - helps to destroy the Western industries/economies and create more DEPENDENCY on imports (DEPENDENCY is the watchword here as DEPENDENCY is used to rule us - independence, self-sufficiency is a threat to our money changer rulers - in fact where I say "DEPENDENCY" read "GLOBALISATION")

"CARBON-DUNNIT" - loosely applied to everyone else - helps in the transfer of capital away from the developed countries as industry relocates to try to stay afloat.

(er... are we at war or something?)

The West is free thinking, innovative and with a seriously admirable history and culture. Qualkities that are NOT good if you are a scum-bag money-changer that wants to control the world. Make sense?

Go well, decent people of the world

reply to post by Demandred


i never ruled out the orthodox approach, which focuses on temperatures, i simply added another variable into the mix, which is experimentally proven to have that effect.

if anything, sunblocker is as manmade as it gets, so i'd love to see it changed (or gone if necessary) like yesterday, its effect on Vitamin D synthesis is bad enough anyway. only a ban can lead to conclusive results, obviously.

PS: that's exactly the problem i see with all AGW threads, if it ain't CO2 it does not exist, could be proven dimethyl mercury (extremely toxic compound, btw) pollution, it would still only be about CO2 here and warming there, while any other proposed or identified mechanism is either ignored or denied.

I personally do not buy into the theory that the world is a run away hot house about to bake us all. I tend to lean towards the sun being the cause for the heat rising here on earth.

But, can someone one explain for me why the ice is melting? The poles should be less effected by solar flares and discharges. Maybe it is the sun. Since I don't know, I will ask you all.

Thanks,

pjwhoopie

reply to post by budski


Two facts no body talk:
A) the air we breath consist of 77% notrogen, 20.5 oxigen and 2,5 % noble gases. From them carbon gases (CO and CO2) are only 6%. Even with PhD title you have to be dam, not to recognised that the claim is bogus. By the way nitrogen has temperature absorption coeficient of 1.02 and the carbon 1.05. This meas that main heat will comes from the nitrogen. Unfortunately we can not control it at all - it is mainly product of natural radiation.
B) Risng the sea level with 10, 20 or more ft is not possible. This will requires (by the law of physic) change of the planet orbit. In physic there is equation of mater - which is the ratio of the energy field i.e the solar system ,to energy of the object i.e Earth. Changing the seal level will change the radius of the planet, which will reflect to the energy field of the planet, which to be balance with the energy of the solar system, will requires change of the orbit.
Can I have now my Nobel price ,PLEASE!
DSA

I am reviving this 2008 thread, to add current and relevant data.

www.newsmax.com... widget&nmx_content=61&nmx_campaign=widgetphase2

GLOBAL-WARMING TEMPERATURE DATA HAS BEEN FAKED FOR YEARS!
The temperature data from South America has been "adjusted" since the 1950s, to try and prove global temperatures are rising faster than they really are.

originally posted by: MKMoniker
I am reviving this 2008 thread, to add current and relevant data.

www.newsmax.com... widget&nmx_content=61&nmx_campaign=widgetphase2

GLOBAL-WARMING TEMPERATURE DATA HAS BEEN FAKED FOR YEARS!
The temperature data from South America has been "adjusted" since the 1950s, to try and prove global temperatures are rising faster than they really are.

I saw this a few days ago.
I really think we need more evidence, and a sustained (and above all) honest debate.

The problem always occurs when science becomes politicised, that there will be dishonesty somewhere down the line.

a reply to: budski

More evidence of what?

Are you one of those who still believe that about 97% of the scientist who study climate are in cahoots with each other to alter the data in order to fulfill the climate change 'scam'?

Many of us focus on the CO2 trend on these threads since CO2 is one of the major by products of combustion. Our CO2 levels are climbing fast, yet there are still many who apparently refuse to accept that the CO2 is caused by man's addiction to burning coal, oil, and natural gas.

It is shameful that we can not have a reasonable discussion on the issue.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: budski

More evidence of what?

Are you one of those who still believe that about 97% of the scientist who study climate are in cahoots with each other to alter the data in order to fulfill the climate change 'scam'?

Many of us focus on the CO2 trend on these threads since CO2 is one of the major by products of combustion. Our CO2 levels are climbing fast, yet there are still many who apparently refuse to accept that the CO2 is caused by man's addiction to burning coal, oil, and natural gas.

It is shameful that we can not have a reasonable discussion on the issue.

Yes it is shameful, especially as that 97% figure is nonsense and was basically plucked out of the air like so much of the original IPCC report.

It's shameful that people like you shout down those who want more information when doubt is expressed over data that appears to have been manipulated, or when emails show collusion to shout down dissenting voices who have reached a different conclusion.

It's shameful that the whole thing has become politicised, and that scientists have been warring with each other over the billions in grant money to "study" something that politicians insist is already proven, so that science becomes about the conclusion rather than the scientific process.

You're absolutely right. It's shameful.

a reply to: budski

No, the ~97% is a real number and most of those who oppose climate change the other 3ish% are bankrolled by the Oil Cartel. The overwhelming consensus of the actual scientist say we causing significant changes.

Do i really need to link the threads and posts with this information?

Please save me the time and do you own research, not regurgitate the same tired old song.

The debate is over...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: budski

No, the 97% is a real number and most of those who oppose climate change, the 3ish% are bankrolled by the Oil Cartel

Do i really need to link the threads and post with this information?

Educate yourself.

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

read the full article

a reply to: budski

The number you pulled was from 2003, 12 years ago. The consensus of the scientists has shifted since then. Also The Wall Street Journal is an economic journal, not a science journal and do a little research on the authors of the article tells their tale.

I see you like to take the 'tu quoque' approach with faced with criticism.

Do you really believe the overwhelming majority of scientists are making this stuff up as part of a ponzi scheme or scam to raise our taxes?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: budski

The number you pulled was from 2003, 12 years ago. The consensus of the scientists has shifted since then. Also The Wall Street Journal is an economic journal, not a science journal and do a little research on the authors of the article tells their tale.

I see you like to take the 'tu quoque' approach with faced with criticism.

Do you really believe the overwhelming majority of scientists are making this stuff up as part of a ponzi scheme or scam to raise our taxes?

edit on 12-2-2015 by jrod because: Note that Joseph Blast is president of The Heartland Institute and Roy Spencer is in cahoots with The Heartland Insitute

hahaha, it doesn't matter where the number came from, it's a big fat propaganda fake, like most things are.

a reply to: budski

I can find a thread that suggests the 97ish% is an accurate consensus, but you will laugh it off. Scientific consensus, shunsensus...it does not matter.

Are you going to respond to the fact that the WSJ article was co-written by the president of The Heartland Institute and a 'scientist' who is bankrolled by Exon?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: budski

I can find a thread that suggests the 97ish% is an accurate consensus, but you will laugh it off. Scientific consensus, shunsensus...it does not matter.

Are you going to respond to the fact that the WSJ article was co-written by the president of The Heartland Institute and a 'scientist' who is bankrolled by Exon?

No, because I simply don't care about attacking the messenger, and prefer to look at the facts, hence my desire for more information.

a reply to: budski

Yet those who wrote the article have been shown guilty time and again of manipulation of science for their agenda.

Do you even know what the Heartland Institute is all about? Or what kind of products Exon mines and sells?

The debate is over, I am wasting my time. The information is available, but some will choose a pseudo-science article out of an economic journal as 'proof' that the vast majority got it wrong.

You claim to look at facts, but you ignore the obvious facts and the clear links of the problems humans are causing this planet.

How do we know you do now have an agenda? Your posts suggest dis-honest debate tactics.....

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: budski

Yet those who wrote the article have been shown guilty time and again of manipulation of science for their agenda.

Do you even know what the Heartland Institute is all about? Or what kind of products Exon mines and sells?

The debate is over, I am wasting my time. The information is available, but some will choose a pseudo-science article out of an economic journal as 'proof' that the vast majority got it wrong.

You claim to look at facts, but you ignore the obvious facts and the clear links of the problems humans are causing this planet.

How do we know you do now have an agenda? Your posts suggest dis-honest debate tactics.....

is there a yawn emoticon?

You didn't even read the WSJ article did you.
You just saw "Wall St Journal" and decided it was bad.

Then you have the gall to talk about honest debating.

Did you even read my reply earlier before attacking me?
I stated, very, very clearly that I needed more information than that contained within the article before making a judgement, but that appears to have passed you by.

See ya now.

a reply to: budski
One needs a subscription to read the full article, I was only able to read what was snipped on here.

Keep up the bogus claims. I never attacked you. You are guilty of 'putting words in my mouth' with that last response, another dishonest debate tactic.

You have failed to address several key points of the article:

1) This was published in an economic journal, not a science journal. The claims in the article are NOT scientific.

2) The article was co-written by the president of the Heartland Institute and a scientist who is bankrolled by Exon

3) The overwhelming consensus of the scientists who study this stuff, all agree that we are responsible

a reply to: jrod

This is what you said:

More evidence of what?

Are you one of those who still believe that about 97% of the scientist who study climate are in cahoots with each other to alter the data in order to fulfill the climate change 'scam'?

Many of us focus on the CO2 trend on these threads since CO2 is one of the major by products of combustion. Our CO2 levels are climbing fast, yet there are still many who apparently refuse to accept that the CO2 is caused by man's addiction to burning coal, oil, and natural gas.

It is shameful that we can not have a reasonable discussion on the issue.

Straight after I had posted about wanting more information than that contained in the news story, like this:

I saw this a few days ago.
I really think we need more evidence, and a sustained (and above all) honest debate.

The problem always occurs when science becomes politicised, that there will be dishonesty somewhere down the line.

Now you say you didn't attack me.

And NOW it turns out you didn't even read the article about the 97% fallacy.

I'm out.

a reply to: budski

That is not an attack. It is constructive criticism that you took the tu quoque approach instead of addressing the issues I raised.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: budski

That is not an attack. It is constructive criticism that you took the tu quoque approach instead of addressing the issues I raised.

Rubbish.
It was a straight out attack because you thought I meant something else.

In addition to not reading the source material, you didn't even bother to read my post properly before jumping in with both feet.