US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I

uh...so first of all this was already posted here in the Fragile Earth forum days ago, but obviously nobody reads that forum (not even the ATS mods apparently).

Anyway, I already debunked it there so I'm just gonna copy & paste what I wrote. But for those that just want a summary - Hal Lewis, the physics professor who wrote this shpiel is a complete liar and a fraud. He is directly involved with other "scientists" who have been known to get paid to advocate ideas like global warming is a hoax AND smoking does not cause cancer. Proof is below:

Originally posted by mc_squared
Yeah I'm sure the APS and their 47,000 members who happened to resoundingly disagree with his politicized bullsh** tactics will be reeeeeal sorry to see him go...


How about taking a look at the WHOLE story behind his resignation:

Hal Lewis was part of an extremely aggressive lobbying campaign to petition the APS to revise their official statement on climate change. He seems very bitter about it in his resignation letter, implying that the petition was overw helmingly rejected by the APS council because, as he puts it - "other forces are at work".

Now never mind the fact that the council took the petition very sincerely, appointing an independent committee of esteemed scientists led by MIT nuclear physicist Daniel Kleppner to look into the matter. This committee spent FOUR MONTHS reviewing the science of climate change on the basis of Hal's allegations that it is largely unsettled and misrepresented.

So never mind that the committee found these allegations to be completely untrue. Let's just assume they were all "in on it" too (because you know, a nuclear physicist whose own work has nothing to do with climate change will get more grant money if he supports it blah blah blah).


So this shouldn't matter anyway - because if there really is no "scientific consensus" on global warming, who cares what the council says - Hal's petition is what really matters, right?


So let's go ask those 47,000 or so scientists that had an opportunity to sign it:

Only 0.45% of Physicists sign Denier Petition

Yes that's right - out of 47,000 possible respondents: a whopping 206 of them put their name to this crucial document. And as the link above points out - this amounts to 0.45%, which coincidentally is roughly the same number of people who fall for Nigerian email scams. Weird huh!

Anyway you can read more about the demographics of the signees here in this report.


BUT WAIT - THERE'S MORE!!


Because to be fair - I see in his resignation letter Hal implies that the 200 signatures were just acquired to meet some bare minimum requirement to bring the proposal before council, because it was "not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list". This is kind of an odd thing to complain about considering earlier in the letter he complains about getting reprimanded for already having access to and emailing some portion of that membership list, but whatever - moving on...


Let's see what else Hal and his diligent denier buddies did to get around this injustice and spread the good word:

They had their petition published in the Journal Nature

For those of you that don't know - Nature is arguably the most prestigious and well known scientific journal in the world. Science simply doesn't get any more "mainstream" than this. Their demographics page boasts that the journal has a print circulation of 50,000+ copies, with a pass along rate of 8. That means over 8 x 50,000 = 400,000 people, mostly scientists, read it. Meanwhile their unique monthly online readership amounts to ONE AND A HALF MILLION full fledged practicing nerds.

Publishing in Nature is basically the scientists' equivalent of getting your own ad at the Super Bowl.

...so Hal Lewis can cry me a river over how hard it was to get people to know about his pathetic petition. And none of this even accounts for the fact it was also put up as an open letter on the internet and blogged, pinged and tweeted across the rabid reaches of the denial-o-sphere.


BUT WAIT - THERE'S EVEN MORE!!


Because if anyone is still holding on to some wicked fantasy that Hal Lewis is just some honest, ostracized science folk hero, trying to make the truth heard in the face of overwhelming collusion amongst the big bad scientific elite - let me thoroughly squash that for you:

Go back to the Nature link and look at the first author of this epic petition (the first name under the title, and the one that comes right before Lewis).

Fred Singer is one of the most notoriously well known corporate hack scientists out there in the world of political lobbying. His sourcewatch page has a detailed rap sheet documenting 20 years of pimping out his PhD on behalf of Big Tobacco and Oil companies. Look at his body of work:

In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.

In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top Five Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen.

He also stated that he had undertaken consulting work on "perhaps a dozen or so" energy companies. This included work on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell, Sun, Unocal, the Electric Power Research Institute, Florida Power and the American Gas Association.

Singer is one of the classic outspoken climate skeptic "scientists" whose pockets happen to be stuffed with cash from Big Oil and Coal. Ironically he is also one of the most vocal critics of the supposed lack of integrity in peer-reviewed mainstream science. So what a coincidence that Lewis' name appears right next to his as co-authors of this petition, and now Hal's crying the same song.

The fact is his resignation letter is nothing but sour grapes and overdramatic grandstanding from a man who got busted and called out on his delusional crusade on behalf of Big Oil. The facts and the science are completely clear on this, and once again vindicated the TRUE story behind climate change.

Yet the minions of the internet continue to eat this sort of crap up because they are swallowing it whole from blogs that are set up to deliberately USE YOU to spread this disinformation. In the meantime you completely miss the point behind the real conspiracy hidden within global warming. Stop being their puppet.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Mak Manto

 

You have one scientist.

More then one poster has said there is only one scientist making these claims,

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)

Who: Dr. Arthur Robinson of the OISM

What: release of names in OISM "Petition Project"

When: 10 AM, Monday May 19

Where: Holeman Lounge at the National Press Club, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC

Why: the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM's Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of "settled science" and an overwhelming "consensus" in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not "skeptics."

newsbusters.org...

Petition project

www.petitionproject.org...

The OISM is just another complete fraud. Watch this video - it is well worth the ten minutes to tell you the real story behind the global warming "hoax":




Or here is a great news clip explaining the validity of the 32,000 "scientists" on that petition:
Jokers Add Fake Names To Warming Petition

ClimateGate does not prove that our planet is not getting warmer, just as faked UFO documents do not prove UFOs do not exist. You can't prove a negative. In fact, debunkers (or *anyone*) interested in deflating their opposition could/would "leak" emails or documents of dubious nature and use them to discredit the other viewpoint. Governments (yes, even the U.S. government) have worked these things since there were formal governments.

That being said, perhaps "Global Warming" is the wrong name. Yes, the planet (all of the planets in our solar system) are getting warmer. Maybe mankind is not responsible. Maybe it has to do with natural solar cycles. Maybe it has to do with aligning with the galactic plane of the Milky Way.

Most people mistaken "global warming" as being immediately "man-made." Not so. Sure, our planet is getting warmer, but most likely not due to our activities. Again, the other planets are getting warmer and I doubt we're behind that.

Then, people ask, "Well if the planet's getting warmer, then why was last winter so cold and snowy!?" Global Warming leads to a heightened amount of atmospheric energy. Higher temperatures feed higher winds, more powerful weather patterns. --You see, it confused me at first too. Look at it this way:

Hurricanes get more powerful (faster winds, etc.) when the water is higher temp. The same is true for global weather patterns. A warmer globe means the wind cycles are faster, bigger and reach farther. These wind cycles and weather patterns that did not previously have the power and reach to touch ARCTIC temperature ranges can now reach up there and bring that cold air down into the U.S. Sure, weather systems bring this air down, but now they reach farther north and bring *more* and *colder* and (possibly) *wetter* air south. Global Warming leads to EXTREME WEATHER.

This means that summers get hotter. Winters get colder. There's not as much in-between.

A bunch of leaked "climate-gate" papers doesn't change the reality of what is happening. But, the papers do intensify the controversy and debate which causes wheels to spin while a new climate unfolds all around us. Leaked papers do not change the fact that the Arctic and Antarctic are experiencing melting like never before. Leaked papers do not change the fact that polar bears are drowning because their icy homelands are melting into the ocean faster than they can adapt. Leaked papers do not change the fact that areas in drought conditions are drier and hotter while areas that have plenty of water get flooding. Global warming = weather extremes.

I don't believe mankind is behind this. But the real issue is not who or what is to blame as much as it is about IMHO how to survive it. How can we prepare? Instead, there is a lot of political fingerpointing and debate. It's happening folks. Let's prepare for the worst.

i love how those who deny climate change deny any science that disproves their pre-conceived notion, and yet turn around and hold up other 'science' as evidence of their beliefs.

it really does remind me of the christian fundamentalists and their belief the earth is 3000 years old. The devil hid them dinasaur bones to fool us!

reply to post by Mak Manto


One scientist, are you serious? Here are a couple of links out of many more showing your statement to be completely false.

en.wikipedia.org...
Foe the second link read the petitions purpose, then scan through some of the 31,000 names.
www.oism.org...

Far from "only one person"

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Yeah whatever...

I'd rather our children's children look back on how global warming was a fraud...instead of asking why this generation ignored the signs and did nothing?!

If there's a rational argument for *not* reducing carbon emissions or protecting the environment can somebody post a basic outline?

Yes there is, but environlunatics are not smart enough to even come to this conclusion themselves when it has been known for decades...

ALL green biomass thrives WITH HIGHER LEVELS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 than the levels that exist today... Yet these environlunatics, sorry but it appears you are one of them, call themselves environmnetalists, when environmentalists should be HAPPY that there is more atmospheric levels of CO2...

CO2 is NOT a pollutant...it is plant food, and plants feed animals as well as humans, but hey the EPA has also been trying to label water vapor as a pollutant...

Photosynthesis begins when stomata, pore-like openings on the undersides of leaves, are activated by light and begin breathing in carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air. This CO2 is broken down into carbon (C) and oxygen (O). Some of the O is used for other plants processes, but most is expelled back into the air. The C is combined with water to form sugar molecules, which are then converted into carbohydrates. These carbohydrates (starches) combine with nutrients, such as nitrogen, to produce new plant tissues. CO2 is vital to plant growth and development, and yet is often the most overlooked element in indoor gardening.

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

Research after research shows that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 levels than 380ppm are beneficial to all green biomass, which means all trees, plants, etc, etc, thrive, grow faster, stronger, and yield more harvests, as in more food, than with the 380ppm atmospheric CO2 levels that exist right now on Earth.

Another fact that environlunatics are obviously not aware of is that when atmospheric CO2 levels are as low as they are today there is a stunt in the growth, as well as less harvests from all green biomass, yet environlunatics, politicians, the IPCC and the rest of the One Worlders want to sequester, or trap atmospheric CO2 levels, when we know for a fact that this will stunt even more the growth of all trees, and all green biomass causing even more mass starvation around the world.

The fact that environlunatics are not aware of this fact shows that the majority of them do not have the necessary education to make an educated opinion, instead you people keep wanting to believe the AGW hoaxers, when they have been caught red handed lying, and doing everything in their power to keep people in the dark to the truth of Climate Change.

BTW, there is also no real proof that CO2, at the levels it exists on Earth, causes the warming claimed by the AGW hoaxers, instead they rely on computer models which are known to be wrong.

The thing is that people can be taxed because we all exhale CO2, not to mention that stunting the growth of trees, and all other green biomass which produce food will cause more worldwide starvation, and this goes along very well with the known plans of the rich elites to "depopulate Earth", and the environlunatics are more than happy to go along with these plans apparently, even when they don't realise that they are part of the target that the elites have to starve more out of existance...

So go ahead and keep cheering for those who want you, and most of the world to starve...

Originally posted by justadood
i love how those who deny climate change deny any science that disproves their pre-conceived notion, and yet turn around and hold up other 'science' as evidence of their beliefs.

it really does remind me of the christian fundamentalists and their belief the earth is 3000 years old. The devil hid them dinasaur bones to fool us!

Obviously this had to come from "justadood"... first of all NO ONE is denying Climate Change... The Climate is ALWAYS changing, but obviously "justadood" alongside the rest of the environlunatics are not aware that the climate is ALWAYS changing...

Not only that but the Earth had been warming "rapidly" for over 200 years before atmospheric CO2 levels even began to increase, in fact it began warming as parts of the world were still going through the LIA, but of course "justadood" and most of the rest of the envionlunatics don't even know what LIA even stands for.

As a matter of fact the Earth has been undergoing warming since the end of the last glacial period, and since then the Earth has been undergoing several Climate Changes from cold to warm, back to cold, and many of those changes have been even faster than the one we have been experiencing and also WARMER, such as the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, which were global in nature and were much warmer than any time we have experienced so far. Not to mention that during these two WARMER periods atmospheric CO2 levels were LOWER, from about 260ppm -290ppm than it has been during the 19th, 20th or so far the 21st century, yet we have experienced COLDER temperatures than during the Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods, alongside many others.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1002ae3ec9e9.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9be21070709c.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
Global warming is no different than all the other frauds out there. Lets do a list.

Sunscreen ---- most cancer patients have vitamin D deficiency.

Bottle Water ---- Less healthy than most tap water, with added chemical harmful to the body, and most of the good minerals taken out.

Electricity ---- We are told we are wasting electricity, as if there wasn't enough. It's impossible to run out of electricity. FACT.

Carbon Emissions --- Apparently global warming is man made. On mars, and jupiter too. We'd better be taxed on the air we breathe, because it will make the air cleaner.....

Going green ---- Now we have to buy "green" products, because they are apparently safer for the make believe environment. Oh but wait, they cost twice as much as the "harmful" products out there..... Try that one on reverse psycology.

Organic foods ----- Costs twice as much as regularily grown foods. But my question is, when did they stop growing organically? And Why is it cheaper to buy chemically grown foods, you'd think the chemicals would cost more than just plain old organic?

Bottom line..... We must pay for everything we do. From going in the sun, to drinking water, to eating "organic" foods. They even found a way to charge us on the air we breathe. It's pretty genius when you think about it. It's also twisted and evil. But that's the world we live in today.

Agreed, I once opened up a bag of Organic produce once and found bugs living in the food. o it was organic all right and it cost twice as much and it came with extra protin.

That was the first and last time i bought organic!

Globle warming is a fake and the Dems are lined up to make millions off it

Originally posted by Skeptron
reply to post by Mak Manto

 

One scientist, are you serious? Here are a couple of links out of many more showing your statement to be completely false.

en.wikipedia.org...
Foe the second link read the petitions purpose, then scan through some of the 31,000 names.
www.oism.org...

Far from "only one person"

Yeah, exactly. Only 31,000 out of millions of scientists around the world. And oddly nearly all of the 31 thousand have no involvement in atmopsheric sceince. But then, when asking whether heart surgery is safe you'd ask a geologist? Right?

There are many scientists who belive the world is 6,000 year oldoe sthat me we question geology?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by Mak Manto
WOW!

One? ONE PROFESSOR IS SAYING GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE? Good God, ATS! We've got to get ready! A Physics professor is saying that global warming is a fraud!

And to think we listen to the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science about how global warming can become a future threat!

Yes, this ONE PROFESSOR SURELY IS LEADING A REVOLUTION!

I like your sarcasm, but sometimes, it only takes one.

In the Middle Ages, only ONE man said that the Earth was round, despite EVERY other scientist agreeing it was flat.

Look, if this was a bet, I would place my winnings on the ORGANIZATIONS that state global warming is real. You have one scientist. We have THOUSANDS of scientists who are dead sure global warming is being impacted by humanity, and that if we don't try to slow or stop this, in a few short generations, we're going to be in serious trouble.

Let me say this: There is a consensus by the scientific community global warming is happening, and it's by our hands with the release of greenhouse gasses.

Who you going to believe?

So what?

Your argument is a LOGICAL FALLACY.

It's called Argumentum ad Populum.

The number of people who agree on something has NOTHING to do with it being true or not.

Your argument is completely invalid.

Hold on a second...

This is not just people BELIEVING IT. It's not like scientists are going, "Well, we want to believe it! It has to be true!"

These organizations that believe that global warming is true are backed with evidence that this is occurring! This is not like they believe something without any proof!

I'm sure they do believe it. There are also scientists who do not believe in man-made climate change.

Where your reasoning and argument becomes invalid and a logical fallacy is when you us the number of scientists who believe it. Numbers are irrelevant to truth. All you have presented is X number of scientists believe in man-made global warming. X number of scientists can be wrong.

Truth is not decided upon by the number of people who agree to it. You could have 1,000,000 scientists who think the sky is red and 1 scientist who thinks the sky is blue and the 1 scientist would be correct, not the 1 million who think otherwise.

Appeal to Numbers is a logical fallacy, it's an irrelevant argument.

It kind of is in this situation. Most people don't understand the full science behind global warming, so who do you turn to?

Scientists.

Except there are scientists on every side that say mankind is involved, and others that say they don't. So, that's why we do turn to these organizations. The larger number of scientists who do say that we're helping global warming is far bigger then a few scientists who say it's not.

You can claim all you want that that one scientist could be correct. Well, he could be, but like I said before, who do you trust?

I trust all of the minds who say we're involved with this.

The long short of it is this; we could live in perfect harmony with our planet for the next 20,000 years with a miniscule "Carbon footprint" and it wouldn't make a difference. Tomorrow a Super Volcano could go off and throw us into a darkened ice age for the next 5 years. While I agree with not having to smell the fumes being pumped out of factories or cars, and that there is valid proof that gases formed by landfills and dumps can cause brain chemical problems in children, I don't think there's "manmade" cause for global warming, not on the civilian side of things at least. There's no telling what kind of atmospheric damage was caused from all of the nuclear bomb testing that has gone on over the decades, and lets not forget Haarp, which is causing droughts in the south east right now.

reply to post by bronwyn82


sure, but the climate is changing and the environment is getting more and more polluted. If they want to use the man made global warming as an excuse to clean up and reduce forests burning and such, for me its fine.

Originally posted by Mak Manto
...
You can claim all you want that that one scientist could be correct. Well, he could be, but like I said before, who do you trust?

I trust all of the minds who say we're involved with this.

It has nothing to do with claims, it has to do with FACTS, and what the evidence shows.

Those scientists you want to believe are people like Mann, the inventor of the Hockey Stick Graph which is known to be not only wrong but a lie, as Mann tried to bury part of the Medieval Warm Period, and then in his second attempt he even tried to bury the Roman Warm period.

These are the same people who KNEW that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt by 2015, but they published this lie knowingly to FORCE government to support their "agenda"...

These are the same people who were caught in lie, after lie, after lie, including the Climategate scandal which caused prof Jones, one of the main AGW scientist believers to contemplate suicide because he was caught alongside the other AGW scientists hiding data, talking about keeping people in the dark even if it meant to use all legal and illegal ways to keep any contradictory evidence from reaching the public...

Those are the people you want to believe, meanwhile MANY IPCC scientists, and scientists from all over the wordl have been telling us about this for years, that it is all a hoax, and AGW/Global Warming is nothing more than a political tool to force governments and people to follow an agenda based on lies...

I rather believer the thousands of scientists who actually have facts, and evidence backing their claims than the liars you want to believe in...

Originally posted by derfred33
sure, but the climate is changing and the environment is getting more and more polluted. If they want to use the man made global warming as an excuse to clean up and reduce forests burning and such, for me its fine.

But they are not...instead they are going after a gas which is beneficial for all life on Earth at higher levels...

Do people like you even read the evidence others post instead of jumping in the AGW bandwagon just "because your friends are doing the same thing or because it is the new vogue"?...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Mak Manto
...
You can claim all you want that that one scientist could be correct. Well, he could be, but like I said before, who do you trust?

I trust all of the minds who say we're involved with this.

It has nothing to do with claims, it has to do with FACTS, and what the evidence shows.

Those scientists you want to believe are people like Mann, the inventor of the Hockey Stick Graph which is known to be not only wrong but a lie, as Mann tried to bury part of the Medieval Warm Period, and then in his second attempt he even tried to bury the Roman Warm period.

These are the same people who KNEW that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt by 2015, but they published this lie knowingly to FORCE government to support their "agenda"...

These are the same people who were caught in lie, after lie, after lie, including the Climategate scandal which caused prof Jones, one of the main AGW scientist believers to contemplate suicide because he was caught alongside the other AGW scientists hiding data, talking about keeping people in the dark even if it meant to use all legal and illegal ways to keep any contradictory evidence from reaching the public...

Those are the people you want to believe, meanwhile MANY IPCC scientists, and scientists from all over the wordl have been telling us about this for years, that it is all a hoax, and AGW/Global Warming is nothing more than a political tool to force governments and people to follow an agenda based on lies...

I rather believer the thousands of scientists who actually have facts, and evidence backing their claims than the liars you want to believe in...

edit on 11-10-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors

I stated in my other post that their claims are backed up with facts. I don't think I need to RESTATE THIS every single post.

Originally posted by Essan
Yeah, exactly. Only 31,000 out of millions of scientists around the world. And oddly nearly all of the 31 thousand have no involvement in atmopsheric sceince. But then, when asking whether heart surgery is safe you'd ask a geologist? Right?

There are many scientists who belive the world is 6,000 year oldoe sthat me we question geology?

And Essan comes again... Sorry but your claims of "millions of scientists agree" has been disproven SEVERAL TIMES... Many scientific groups are not even asking the majority of their members scientists for their opinions, and instead have claimed that the majority agree with with a dozen, who are more insterested in funding, claim when many scientists have been complaining for years that many scientific groups are not asking for their members' opinions, but are just jumping on the AGW bandwagon to get a cut of the multi-billion dollar AGW industry...

I rather believe the scientists who even at the risk of losing their jobs tell the truth, and many have lost their jobs for questioning AGW/Global Warming, than the "policymakers" who are jumping in the bandwagon just to get more funding...

BTW, do tell us Essan, since when does a consensus of "policymakers" and liars means they stand for the truth?....

Originally posted by Mak Manto
I stated in my other post that their claims are backed up with facts. I don't think I need to RESTATE THIS every single post.

Sorry but that is BS, you CLAIMED they have facts, yet what facts have you posted?... All you are doing is siding with those who have been lying for years to push for their agenda...

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
.........

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

BTW, be certain that the AGW believers will try to use any way to silence anyone, and everyone, including using the tactics their masters have used, and keep using to try to silence anyone who dares to post research that refutes AGW....

The first person to post this story was seattletruth in the BAN forum. Here is a link to his story Link

A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.

An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglias climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.

Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.

Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UNs embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.
..............

www.theage.com.au...

In at least one of the emails they mention ways that they can use not to release information, and in one of the emails Jones himself jokes saying...:

....If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone."

www.cbsnews.com...



It wasn't a mistake like the IPCC policy makers, and some others are claiming, including those people who still believe in AGW after we have found concrete and danming evidence that shows it is nothing more than a scam...

Dr Murari Lal has admitted that they included the unfounded claims to pressure nations, and politicians into accepting the Kyoto Protocol...

Of course NOW that we found out this "error" this scientist is trying to come clean before this was found out through an investigation....

Not only have the IPCC "policy makers" which includes scientists who back the AGW have used dubious tactics which include false reports, and rigged data, but we also know the main proponents of the AGW scam have been using similar tactics...

Marc Morano
Climate Depot
Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot’s full report here. )

Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces “a document designed for uniformity and consensus.” Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed,” Christy said. “If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required,” he added.

‘The reception to my comments was especially cold’

[The following is excerpted from Andrew Revkin's January 26, 2009 New York Times blog Dot Earth. For full article go here.]

Excerpt: Last March, more than 100 past [UN IPCC] lead authors of report chapters met in Hawaii to chart next steps for the panel’s inquiries. One presenter there was John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who has focused on using satellites to chart global temperatures. He was a lead author of a section of the third climate report, in 2001, but is best known these days as a critic of the more heated warnings that climate is already unraveling under the buildup of heat-trapping gases.
.....................

www.prisonplanet.com... ve-to-sign-kyoto-protocol.html

NASA climate data worse than East Anglia CRU?

posted at 12:15 pm on March 31, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

That assessment doesn’t come from climate-change skeptics, but from NASA itself. A FOIA request from the Competitive Enterprise Institute revealed the internal e-mail evaluation, and also another problem with the East Anglia CRU data. It turns out that the databases maintained by NASA, UEA CRU, and the NOAA NCDC have self-endorsing mechanisms that mean that problems in one or more mean problems for all:
NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can’t tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA’s temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglias Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASAs data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASAs Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.
“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDCs data for the U.S. means and (East Anglia) data for the global means,” Ruedy told the reporter.

Why is this a problem for all of the anthropogenic global-warming (AGW) data sets? NASA chief James Hansen, now an Obama administration official, explained in the same e-mail thread:
“The different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise,” said Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in the same 2007 e-mail thread. Earlier this month, in an updated analysis of the surface temperature data, GISS restated that the separate analyses by the different agencies “are not independent, as they must use much of the same input observations.”
The efforts by NASA, UEA CRU, and NCDC have not been independent of each other at all. They have been very much related, which means that systemic problems discovered in the UEA CRU data and analyses bleed over onto the other projects as well. They use each other’s analyses as assumptions, and each other’s data as the basis of their own calculations. The collapse of the UEA CRU’s credibility necessarily damages the credibility of the entire AGW industry.
Of course, that’s hardly the only damage to AGW credibility over the last few months:

hotair.com...

Hansen is also known for being an environlunatic, not only accepting errors as accurate, but even inciting people to use violence to FORCE the U.S. government to partake in the AGW scam.

Even one of the main scientists who is a "leading scientist of the AGW claim" contemplated suicide because of the leaked emails.

...
Jones said critics were "trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion".

He said: "I don't think we should be taking much notice of what's on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process."

Jones, who told the Sunday Times he had considered suicide over the controversy caused by the release of the emails, said he could not comment on allegations that the university mishandled requests for his data under Freedom of Information laws.

But he denied that he had unfairly tried to hijack the peer review process, as suggested by critics who point to an email in which he wrote, "I cant see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin (Trenberth) and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Both papers subsequently appeared in the report. "The IPCC is an assessment, it's not a review," said Jones. "So the authors have to know something about the subject to assess which are the important papers."

Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado has said previously: "I had no role in this whatsoever. I did not make and was not complicit in that statement of Phil's. I am a veteran of three other IPCC assessments. I am well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out."
...

www.guardian.co.uk...


Oh and btw, how about the fact that after the hacked emails were leaked it was found that a lot of information had been disposed of by Jones, and other AGW scientists... But I guess according to the AGW believers, this is just a coincidence...

November 29, 2009

Climate change data dumped Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
...

www.timesonline.co.uk...

The "flat Earthers", and the ones basing their opinions on nothing more than FAITH are the AGW believers, not those of us who can see the truth right in front of our eyes...

reply to post by munkey66


Where are you getting your info from that says the Earth has had 5 ice ages over the last 2.5 billion years?


Nevermind I'm assuming you're going by this:

en.wikipedia.org...

Evidence for ice ages

There are three main types of evidence for ice ages: geological, chemical, and paleontological.

Geological evidence for ice ages comes in various forms, including rock scouring and scratching, glacial moraines, drumlins, valley cutting, and the deposition of till or tillites and glacial erratics. Successive glaciations tend to distort and erase the geological evidence, making it difficult to interpret. Furthermore, this evidence was difficult to date exactly; early theories assumed that the glacials were short compared to the long interglacials. The advent of sediment and ice cores revealed the true situation: glacials are long, interglacials short. It took some time for the current theory to be worked out.

The chemical evidence mainly consists of variations in the ratios of isotopes in fossils present in sediments and sedimentary rocks and ocean sediment cores. For the most recent glacial periods ice cores provide climate proxies from their ice, and atmospheric samples from included bubbles of air. Because water containing heavier isotopes has a higher heat of evaporation, its proportion decreases with colder conditions.[28] This allows a temperature record to be constructed. However, this evidence can be confounded by other factors recorded by isotope ratios.

The paleontological evidence consists of changes in the geographical distribution of fossils. During a glacial period cold-adapted organisms spread into lower latitudes, and organisms that prefer warmer conditions become extinct or are squeezed into lower latitudes. This evidence is also difficult to interpret because it requires (1) sequences of sediments covering a long period of time, over a wide range of latitudes and which are easily correlated; (2) ancient organisms which survive for several million years without change and whose temperature preferences are easily diagnosed; and (3) the finding of the relevant fossils, which requires a lot of luck.

Despite the difficulties, analyses of ice core and ocean sediment cores has shown periods of glacials and interglacials over the past few million years. These also confirm the linkage between ice ages and continental crust phenomena such as glacial moraines, drumlins, and glacial erratics. Hence the continental crust phenomena are accepted as good evidence of earlier ice ages when they are found in layers created much earlier than the time range for which ice cores and ocean sediment cores are available.

Funny how it says all three of these methods have inconsistencies..

then there's this stuff too:

The Huronian glaciation extended from 2400 Mya to 2100 Mya, during the Siderian and Rhyacian periods of the Paleoproterozoic era, triggered by the oxygen catastrophe, which oxidised the atmospheric methane (a greenhouse gas). It was one of the most severe and longest ice ages in geologic history, similar to the Snowball Earth ice ages that happened in the neoproterozoic era

en.wikipedia.org...

^-- funny how this is using the word "Mya" to describe years, and also funny how that if a "Mya" is a "year" then the direct quote is saying the "Huronian glaciation" lasted for 300 years - no where close to hundreds of thousands of years... so is a "Mya" simply 1 year or is it 1 "Ma" -- Ma (for megaannum), is a unit of time equal to one million (106) years. en.wikipedia.org... -- wouldn't it be funny if one of these guys made a mistake when trying to convert Myan baktun's to Julian years? I'm not saying they did or didn't - I'm saying that it would be a fairly easy mistake to make - I can remember hearing about a bank that made an error for billions and billions of dollars not too long ago..

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina | Sat Jul 10, 2010 1:58pm EDT

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (Reuters) - Bank of America Corp is beefing up its internal accounting controls after it incorrectly classified as much as $10.7 billion in short-term lending and repurchase deals for mortgage securities as sales, according to a letter filed on Friday with U.S. securities regulators.

The Charlotte, N.C.-based lender said the transactions -- spread over a three-year period -- were immaterial to Bank of America's earnings in a May 13 letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which was publicly filed on Friday.

The error was first disclosed in the bank's first quarter 2010 report, which noted the bank incorrectly accounted for some mortgage-backed securities as sales, rather than repurchase or short-term lending deals.

The first such error occurred on March 31, 2007, totaling $4.5 billion in securities. The largest misclassification was $10.7 billion in securities on September 30, 2008.

www.reuters.com...

Ooops.

reply to post by 0ne10


I am sorry I worded that wrong.

I was actually talking about the pollutants and not co2 that was causing the dimming in our atmosphere, however the amount of man made co2 emmissions and what naturally occurs is?

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by Mak Manto
WOW!

One? ONE PROFESSOR IS SAYING GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE? Good God, ATS! We've got to get ready! A Physics professor is saying that global warming is a fraud!

And to think we listen to the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science about how global warming can become a future threat!

Yes, this ONE PROFESSOR SURELY IS LEADING A REVOLUTION!

I like your sarcasm, but sometimes, it only takes one.

In the Middle Ages, only ONE man said that the Earth was round, despite EVERY other scientist agreeing it was flat.

This is a lie.

That the Earth was spherical was known since Antiquity (as the Greeks & Romans had estimated its diameter, in fact). Maybe people were ignorant in the West until the Renaissance, but nobody who could remotely be called a scientist (natural philosopher) with any education believed that the Earth was anything but spherical.

After all, allegorical contemporary paintings (e.g. Atlas holding up the Earth) always showed a spherical Earth.

And there isn't any giant fraud in climate research, much as some might like to believe there is.