ATS label all Global Warming threads as HOAX

Group promoting climate skepticism has extensive ties to Exxon-Mobil

And now should be label all anti-GW threads as hoaxes?

ClimateGate: The 7 Biggest Lies About The Supposed "Global Warming Hoax"

The SwiftHack Scandal: What You Need to Know

Michael Mann in his own words on the stolen CRU emails

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by rhinoceros

So what exactly has been destroyed? What's your source for this piece of "info" of destroyed data?

That would be The Associated Press:

There was further criticism following the revelation that the university had thrown out much of the raw temperature data on which its global warming research was based. The university said in a statement last week that the data, stored on paper and magnetic tape, was dumped in the 1980s to save space when the unit moved to a new location.

Source: www.google.com...

Incidentally, there is a difference between saying "it is hard to reconstruct deleted data" and saying "data was deleted".

TheRedneck

Can you find a link to the statement your source refers to?

reply to post by ALLis0NE


ALLisONE, I actually asked the mods to change the title awhile back to reference that, somehow, my thread just got bumped off the top threads list.

I even said to put in that I would eat crow for the mistake. I did mention the MAN MADE IN MY FIRST SENTENCE THOUGH.

reply to post by azureskys


Common sense within epic proportions, star for you.

reply to post by Beefcake


Beefcake, I always like your uptake on things. Yes, persecution is the name of the game if anyone tries to discredit the CHURCH OF CLIMATOLOGY.

Common sense amongst us conspiracist or our debunkers sometimes is lacking. By their very actions of trying to squash the release of the info, decrys their very complicity to the lie.

Star for you for COMMON SENSE.

reply to post by lucentenigma


Thanks for the support on the obfuscations lucentenigma. The SOP of the government as well as SOME members here.

Star for you.

edit to add SOME

[edit on 12/3/2009 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

Find out how much CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and annual global mean temperatures correlate. You'll be surprised. Sure it's not how climate science is done (by pros since they don't assume linear dependency) but anyways see it for yourself. Hell do the math yourself and use only instrumental records for data. Use for example Person's r, shouldn't be to difficult for anyone with basic understanding of math to do..

[edit on 2-12-2009 by rhinoceros]

Your wrong its not CO2 that caused global warming its the loss of pirates.Some how those scally wags were reducing global temprature with the loss of pirates on the high seas the global temp keeps increasing!, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f5159c6baf7a.jpg[/atsimg]

I hope this proves a point to you

reply to post by dragonridr





Liars and scientists use correlation of data to prove their findings.

In other words, Liars use statistics, but statistics never lie.



edit to change statics to statistics hud 2 fex me gramma

[edit on 12/4/2009 by endisnighe]

Yawn. A-GW posters have become the new christian of ATS. I bow to your boundless Duh-ness.

reply to post by dragonridr

It doesn't prove anything since it's totally made up. Look, it's common knowledge that correlation doesn't automatically imply causation. In this particular case we get the causation part from basic chemistry.. and then we observe strong correlation. Why is it so difficult for you to understand?

[edit on 4-12-2009 by rhinoceros]

I am still waiting for them to be marked as HOAX.

What is taking so long?

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I am still waiting for them to be marked as HOAX.

What is taking so long?

It's taking so long, because nobody has showed it to be a hoax. It's a rather difficult task considering that even basic chemistry shows AGW to be very much real. Good luck though!

Today's Jyllands-Posten had an article debunking claims about sea level rise from melting ice caps. One of the world's most knowledgeable ice researchers, Peder Steffensen, from the Niels Bohr Institute, states: "The oceans can not simply rise two meters by the year 2100." The Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) research leader Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen is quoted, "The report from the UNEP is unserious, because it is total speculation. A two-meter rise of the world's oceans is unrealistic over 100 years, according to my knowledge." He says that even if the world temperature really rose by 6-10 degrees, it would take 600-1,000 years to melt all of the Greenland icecap.

www.larouchepac.com...

and

NASA Revises Temperature Data - 1930's warmest on record!
www.globalwarminghoax.com...

Why?

Why is NASA in on it?

Shift that to 1944 and you would have seen that 17 of the past 21 years had been warmer than average. It is obvious that in just the past 125 years there have been other periods just as warm, or warmer, than what we are now experiencing. If we could look at the past 1,000 years with the accuracy of the past 100 years we would most likely find that this is not unusual at all.

Update: Turns out this NASA data was revised because of a Y2K bug in the algorithm used to adjust measurement station raw data. Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data. NASA's James Hansen has refused to release his algorithms but they were reverse engineered by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and NASA has since updated their data (so you know he Steve got it right). What this author finds truly disturbing (and disgusting) is that NASA would keep these algorithms secret. This is public information. Steve really should file a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request to obtain this and what ever else he needs. NASA would be very hard pressed to justify withholding that information. These events seriously call in to question anything James Hansen has touched, supervised, or managed. Not just because he got the math wrong but because he also hides his methods. He is apparently attempting to establish a new religion by requiring people to have faith in his data.

www.globalwarminghoax.com...

Global Warming Skeptics Target NASA

www.foxnews.com...

An American researcher is threatening to sue NASA over its alleged distortion of climate change data. This follows revelations that scientists at a British university have changed or destroyed similar information.

Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, believes NASA manipulated temperature information to support its claim that the present decade is the warmest on record: "They don't want to admit the trend. It's cooling and they're trying not to say that.... When you talk about temperatures this decade and compare them to 1885, where were we measuring the temperature in 1885?"

Despite the escalating controversy over climate change data since the British e-mail story broke 13 days ago, the major broadcast networks have not covered it on their morning or evening news shows according to Media Research Center, even with President Obama heading to a climate change summit in Copenhagen next week.

The Washington Times cited this instructive example: NASA cannot seem to make up its mind whether 1934 or 1998 or 2006 is the hottest year on record in the contiguous 48 States.

www.examiner.com...

www.washingtontimes.com...

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed its data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for the hottest years, with 1934 listed as slightly cooler.

www.washingtontimes.com...

GISS had initially listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931, respectively. After Mr. McIntyre's questions, GISS rejiggered the list to show 1934 as the warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. Since then, the list has been rewritten again so it now runs as 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921 and 1999.
NASA and CRU data are considered the backbone of much of the science that suggests the Earth is warming as a result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. NASA argues that its data suggest this decade has been the warmest on record.

On the other hand, data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville suggest temperatures have been relatively flat for most of this decade.

WHY????


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Stormdancer quit being so logical and informative.

You may wake some of the members from their indoctrination to
The Church of Climatology

Thanks for all your information to my thread and for your comments.

[edit on 12/4/2009 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by dragonridr

 

It doesn't prove anything since it's totally made up. Look, it's common knowledge that correlation doesn't automatically imply causation. In this particular case we get the causation part from basic chemistry.. and then we observe strong correlation. Why is it so difficult for you to understand?

[edit on 4-12-2009 by rhinoceros]

Its not hard to understand at alll the problem is man made global warming uses corralations to prove there point.But there is no scientific evidence proving co2 causes global warming.Unless you have some data proving this in which case ill nominate you for a Nobel prize!

Originally posted by dragonridr
Its not hard to understand at alll the problem is man made global warming uses corralations to prove there point.But there is no scientific evidence proving co2 causes global warming.Unless you have some data proving this in which case ill nominate you for a Nobel prize!

FFS it's basic chemistry. Here's a simple picture for you. A 5 year old kid ought to understand it.. why is it so hard for you?

[edit on 5-12-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by dragonridr
Its not hard to understand at alll the problem is man made global warming uses corralations to prove there point.But there is no scientific evidence proving co2 causes global warming.Unless you have some data proving this in which case ill nominate you for a Nobel prize!

FFS it's basic chemistry. Here's a simple picture for you. A 5 year old kid ought to understand it.. why is it so hard for you?

[edit on 5-12-2009 by rhinoceros]

Really lets discuss your lab results.So first what was the percentage of co2 in the lab i read one report where they had to use 80% co2 atmosphere to prove that co2 could be a greenhouse gas.The problem is any gas in high concentrations works as an insulator.By the way this is the purpose of our atmosphere it insulates us from deep space which gets very cold!

Lets discuss co2 did you realize co2 concentrations are so low in the atmosphere that its difficult to extract it.Unlike oxygen which is much higher concentrations. Now get ready for this have you even bothered to check the UV (ultra Violet) radiation absorption rates for oxygen.

Oxygen makes up 20.95% of our atmosphere while CO2 is 0.038%. Oxygen absorbs ultraviolet radiation as does CO2 however scientist don't want to call it a greenhouse gas.Want to know why there is no way scientists can get grants by saying theres too much oxygen in the atmosphere and it can not be blamed on us terrible humans. Id love to see the global warming crowd go after oxygen that would be funny.Because even the dumbest of people would not fall for that well then again who knows they bought the CO2 thing.

Oh one last thing did you know CO2 is considered an inert gas.Do you know why they use it fire extinguishers for example?????



[edit on 12/5/09 by dragonridr]

reply to post by rhinoceros

Gee, maybe I need to find a 5 y/o kid.... because I certainly don't understand it.

• Incoming solar radiation 343 W/m². Outgoing solar radiation 103 W/m². Energy absorbed by the Earth 168 W/m². 103 + 168 = 271, not 343. What happened to the other 72 W/m²?
  
  
• Energy absorbed by the Earth 168 W/m². Energy re-emitted back as heat 240 W/m². Where did the additional 72 W/m² come from?
  
  
• Seeing as it's the same value as the first error, I would say that the 168 W/m² should perhaps be more like 240 W/m²... but that would mean the earth doesn't keep any energy. Wouldn't we freeze to death that way? What about the energy needed for photosynthesis?
  
  
• Wouldn't the amount of heat warming the earth be equal to the incoming solar radiation minus the outgoing solar radiation minus the outgoing infrared radiation? 343 - 103 - 240 = 0 W/m². Congratulations, you just proved the Earth is not warming?

Now I know why a 5 y/o can understand it: most 5 y/o kids can't add.

TheRedneck

There we go, two people who lack even the most basic understanding of chemistry. I'm not going to bother explaining the picture and those figures for you. I'm amazed thou that you can't make sense of it.. seriously