Climategate Leaker: Our Civilization Is Being Killed By Lying 'Science' Elitists

reply to post by burntheships


So maybe, if you truly care about "denying ignorance" like you claim to - you should focus more on reading the actual source data, rather than relying on bastardized interpretations of it done by lying corporate shills.

James Taylor is a Senior Fellow at The Heartland Institute - the notorious right wing lobbyist "think tank" well known for it's rampant political attacks on any science that involves government regulation or corporate accountability.

They have produced decades of anti-science propaganda on global warming, the health hazards of smoking, water resource management, etc - basically any bit of inconvenient scientific data that threatens their sponsors profit margins.


So you claim to be a skeptic, yet you haven't shown an ounce of skepticism towards these very biased and compromised claims you've propagated on their behalf. You seem to think instead that you can just prove yourself correct on any point you've tried to make as long as you can find a link to it somewhere on the internet.

The reality however is the duplicitous nature of your sources speak for themselves. They are nothing more than an echo chamber of propaganda and disinformation, where the actual data effectively says the complete opposite of everything you've tried to claim it does here.

I think your failure at recognizing this speaks volumes about which side is the one actually ignoring the facts, subscribing to the political propaganda, and accepting that sort of mindless brainwashing without any interest in critical thought or scientific scrutiny.

Global Warming is a science. Global Warming denial is the religion.

reply to post by mc_squared

Global Warming is a science. Global Warming denial is the religion.

Do you know the "science" used to place little bellows type devices along rivers so that if anyone had drowned they could place these bellows between their buttocks and blow smoke up their bottom.

Be careful what you are promoting.

reply to post by atlasastro


Yes, I used Pravda as a source, you think the Russians have time to mess
with religion? No, thats exactly why they dont buy into the congregational worship.

Originally posted by Kali74

This is hilarious, that is modeling....with manipulated data.
These phony charts prove nothing!

Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches
and there has been no rise since 2006.

So...to help the data out.... the scientists at the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded
Sea Level Research Group did what any other self-respecting cult members would do,
they fudged the numbers

There is only one problem with this scenario, Mother Nature isn’t being cooperative.
www.omsj.org...

Originally posted by mc_squared

Global Warming is a science. Global Warming denial is the religion.

From your link....

Believers think the warming is man-made

reply to post by mc_squared

James Taylor is a Senior Fellow at The Heartland Institute - the notorious right wing lobbyist "think tank" well known for it's rampant political attacks on any science that involves government regulation or corporate accountability.

Surely the OP, who is such a strong opponent of geoengineering would not use a source so heavily involved with an agency that promotes geoengineering. I must have chemtrails in my eyes again. Or maybe there's been an undetected dimensional rift.

Geo-engineering the Earth's atmosphere with reflective aerosols presents the most cost-effective and reliable means of keeping the Earth's temperature within a desirable range, David Schnare, senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, told the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in September 26 testimony.

In addition to being much less expensive than seeking to stem temperature rise solely through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, geo-engineering has the benefit of delivering measurable results in a matter of weeks rather than the decades or centuries required for greenhouse gas reductions to take full effect.

Heartland

I'm a bit confused though, I thought according to them there isn't a problem? I mean, the good people at Heartland tell us ad nauseum that all the data is manufactured lies, that the planet isn't warming, that there's nothing to fix apart from the delusions or lies thrust upon humanity by the likes of Al Gore's fanatical religious followers. Why are they trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist?

Oh wait, I forgot, global warming does exist, even though the data that tells them so is all lies, delusions and religious babble, but it's natural... okay, so why are they trying to fix something natural?

Also if humans are too puny (we're not God) to affect the climate with GHG's how are we going to affect the climate with aerosols?

The scientific community has reached a consensus on this.

What the hell? Why is the Heartland Institute telling us there's a scientific consensus on global warming when James Taylor of the Heartland Institute keeps telling us there's no such thing?

Damn critical thinking getting me all confused.

reply to post by burntheships


Do you see the black and green lines?
That's satellite measurements.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and
U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer
flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite
contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during
and after warming than the climate models show

pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com... iant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/

So there is your satellite data that contradicts the AGW cult beliefs.
No charts, charts are primarily for warmists who must rely on visuals,
that look scary.

Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature
Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.

Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming

Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

www.mdpi.com...

Dont look now... so many scientists dont believe the manipulated data.

There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

online.wsj.com...

Signed by 16 scientists :

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Many of you "warmists" have only served to prove the point made in the OP.

Faked data, put into a chart, and large visuals without any supporting scientific
empirical data.

Its called "The Game"
www.futerra.co.uk...

Heavy reliance on "visuals" like the faked hockey stick graph.
With recent IPCC admissions that temperatures have not increased for at
least the past 16 years, the curve has now plunged downward to become
as flat as the rest of the hockey stick
which is where public trust in climate science is headed

For the full evidence for these rules, and the climate change
communications strategy itself, please visit: www.defra.gov.uk

Evaluation is a fundamental element in learning theory
Blind belief is required when one uses skewed science to embrace
a failed scientific theory.

I have said it several times, I will not respond to ad hominem attacks
Many "warmists" fall back on these pathetic attempts, its a huge display of Ignorance

reply to post by burntheships


LOL data backed charts and graphics compared to your 'large visual' of Al Gore as Moses?
I get it, you're determined to cheerlead for geoengineering. Until reading comprehension is improved I don't see much point in going back and forth, or rather, in your case... around corners so as to appear beyond, what you're so clearly not. Have fun with your buddy Bill Gates.

Oh, good heavens Al Gore is the poster boy for AGW,
its called Political Satire .

But if you warmists want to categorize your charts with satirical drawings,
I have no problem with that....

Its actually a perfect fit.

reply to post by burntheships

Just caught up with your thread. Boy you said it. Can I get back all the time I spend reading "Projected" and "Modeled" woe?

Its interesting to note that all the "data" is not actually data in the raw sampling sense, but projections of what could or is going to happen. Its easy to argue from the future where all the see I told you so's are pointing.

The results of all their data are safely stored there waiting for us to get to. We have to wait and see, because as far as I know, there are no real movie prop Deloreans with Mr. Fusions in them. Otherwise we would have heard about it (besides Hollywood, I mean).

Using all the allotted pixel size for big circle pie charts just doesn't seem to cut it either. I can make a graph (from the future) go up or down and yet when I go to the same stretch of beach there is the same old shipwreck, sinking into the sand, next to the same rock outcrop I used to climb on when I was a kid. Thats 50 years. If this new data reflects some change in my geologic eye blink life, shouldn't I be able to actually witness it occurring?

Where can I go to see all this rising temperature and oceans? The glaciers have all melted, the North polar cap melts and returns every year. The tides wreak more havoc on a daily basis than sea level ever will. The oceans ebb and flow, plates creep and oceans erode shorelines.

To me, the whole global warming "theory" (it is called a theory, right?) is a lot like the "theory" of evolution, or the theory of "extinction" or the "theory" of Atlantis for that matter.

I hear a lot of talk, and I see a lot of type, but no actual raw data. Just "models" and "projections" By the way, projection is a good replacement for prophecy, its more acceptable.

Oh, and god forbid we should review any other opinions on the matter outside the United Staes, after all that could be construed to be a second opinion and that will bring certain ridicule.

Wassamaddaf'you? Our scientists not advanced enough for you? Our computers aren't expensive enough? Our theories not conclusive enough? Look at all the time we spend making them up. Now here, read it all until you get confused and just agree with us. You do agree with us, right? Otherwise, you're an idiot.

Thank god for second opinions.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by burntheships

 

Its interesting to note that all the "data" is not actually data in the raw sampling sense, but projections of what could or is going to happen. Its easy to argue from the future where all the see I told you so's are pointing.

Yes, exactly! And, as if that is not bad enough, when they project future tense, if the data
they use does not produce an outcome that is supportive of the AGW theory,
they simply invent creative ways to alter this...aka known as falsifying.

Using all the allotted pixel size for big circle pie charts just doesn't seem to cut it either. I can make a graph (from the future) go up or down and yet when I go to the same stretch of beach there is the same old shipwreck, sinking into the sand, next to the same rock outcrop I used to climb on when I was a kid. Thats 50 years. If this new data reflects some change in my geologic eye blink life, shouldn't I be able to actually witness it occurring?

They were counting on you not being able to process an evaluation after the big pixel pie charts.

I hear a lot of talk, and I see a lot of type, but no actual raw data. Just "models" and "projections" By the way, projection is a good replacement for prophecy, its more acceptable.

Yes, and that is a very good point, one I will look forward to further reading,
that projection is a good replacement for prophecy....

Thank god for second opinions.

Yes, and for that critical thought that some of us still have.

reply to post by burntheships

Yes, and that is a very good point, one I will look forward to further reading,
that projection is a good replacement for prophecy....

That is the primary problem I have with that. ATS is full of "projections" about the next solar event, (CME), the next earthquake, super storm or volcano. All of those "sciences" are not actually science. They are "predicting" a cataclysmic event of some sort using scientific principles to justify their "projections". We all know these things might happen, the data says they have in the past. Even climate catastrophes. Mega Tsunamis, tornados, and asteroids will strike again too.

I can't buy into the predictions about these events though. Especially the "futuristic" science predictions. One can only collect data from the past, nobody can develop any more than trends to unknown outcomes. In the case of the earth climate, it "usually" maintains a steady state, unless something throws a monkey wrench into the works. A good monkey wrench is a planet killer asteroid. We see the damage they do on every moon and planet. Over eons.

Its easy to extrapolate that. And the effect it will likely have on the eco systems. The past climate catastrophes come from just that kind of mega sudden smack.

The slow changes are not as easily defined. Like the theory of evolution or the theory of "life". Even how the planet became suitable for life in the first place. Complete and utter mysteries.

So is "climate change". Whats the current time table ? 50 to a 100 years and "accelerating"? It would have to to keep from boring us.

I know that man's impact on the environment will kill us all a lot sooner than that. By mans impact I mostly mean mega corporations. The Nuclear power industry, Military Industrial Complex, Oil, Mining, whats called "farming" (GMO, chemical fertilizer and pesticide along with soil mismanagement). Lets not forget carbon plus other emissions produced by coal factories, plains trains and automobiles, deforestation and aquifer depletion. All these things will pollute our environment and destroy our resources long before the planet "warms up and the waters rise".

There is strong data to prove the toxicity in fish, birds and us. Theres nothing Predictive with figuring the death toll. So why harp about anything else projected to occur further down the road?

That is where I get off. The same place I get off when someone tells me the world is going to end because WWIII is about to break or the sun is going to implode or the region of space we are currently traveling through is going to eat us.

Originally posted by burntheships

Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and
U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer
flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite
contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during
and after warming than the climate models show

pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com... iant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/

Dont look now... so many scientists dont believe the manipulated data.

Love your work OP.

See, the problem denialist have is that they usually rely on hypocracy and fraud to claim hypocarcy and fraud.
In your case, Spencer et al, actually fudged the data deliberately to form an argument.

However, it turned out that Spencer had, for the umpteenth time, botched his statistics. To summarize, Spencer and Braswell 1) compared a 10 year period of data with 100 year periods in the models, instead of breaking the 100 years into 10 year periods, 2) didn’t put error bars on the data or the model output, and 3) didn’t plot some of the models that did a better job at reproducing the data. If they had done all this the right way, they would have seen that the models do a decent job, although some are better than others.

bbickmore.wordpress.com...

The editor of the journal that published the paper you link gad to do this after publishing Spencers crap.

This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

This is the the full response from the editor.

In hindsight,it is possible to see why the review process of the paper by Spencer and Braswell did not fulfill its aim. The managing editor of Remote Sensing selected three senior scientists from renowned US universities, each of them having an impressive publication record. Their reviews had an apparently good technical standard and suggested one “major revision”, one “minor revision” and one “accept as is”. The authors revised their paper according to the comments made by the reviewers and, consequently, the editorial board member who handled this paper accepted the paper (and could in fact not have done otherwise). Therefore, from a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors. This selection by itself does not mean that the review process for this paper was wrong. In science, diversity and controversy are essential to progress and therefore it is important that different opinions are heard and openly discussed. Therefore editors should take special care that minority views are not suppressed, meaning that it certainly would not be correct to reject all controversial papers already during the review process. If a paper presents interesting scientific arguments, even if controversial, it should be published and responded to in the open literature. This was my initial response after having become aware of this particular case. So why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have I changed my initial view?The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

BurntheShips, or B.S for short, this is what happens when you quote mine for material to support your argument. Next time you should research the authors, check your source, read the actual material, make sure you undersatnd it, and then post it.

This is just more irrefutable evidence of yet another BurntheShips EPIC fail that only further highlights that you totally lack integrity, honesty and the intellectual capacity to grasp the material, the science and the debate.

You said this:

Originally posted by burntheships
Many of you "warmists" have only served to prove the point made in the OP.

Faked data, put into a chart, and large visuals without any supporting scientific
empirical data.

bbickmore.wordpress.com...
www.skepticalscience.com...

reply to post by atlasastro


You have no source link to your "material" .
Therefore it is assumed....its notihng but a load of ignorance.


If anyone wants to know the truth about the matter, it can be found here.

UPDATE: Sept 6th Hot off the press: Dessler’s record turnaround time GRL rebuttal paper to Spencer and Braswell

(September 4) Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. continues his discussion at his blog: Hatchet Job on John Christy and Roy Spencer By Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick.

UPDATE: Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. weighs in with his opinions on this debacle here, additional updates are below from Dr. Spencer.

By resigning as Editor, rather than soliciting a Comment/Reply exchange between Spencer and Braswell and the critics of their paper, he has achieved the opposite of his stated goal to have “different opinions … heard and openly discussed”. Wagner also writes“three reviewers ….. probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors”. First, he fails to define what is a “climate sceptic“? If this litmus test was required of all referees (that they have to be “correct” in their views of climate science), then the review process itself has failed.

Wolfgang Wagner continues
“So why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.”

pielkeclimatesci.com






Ad hominem attacks are weak attempts at best, and will not be responded to.
You have ignored the source material, through out the thread, and the OP...
"Warmists" resort to ad hominem attacks as they have no real science, only a "religious" belief.


ETA: see you finally added a link to a blog by someone with only initials ?
epic fail on your part.

My source is a scientist.....

reply to post by burntheships

Links are supplied.

The paper was withdrawn.
You can research it yourself.

Epic Fail. Yet again.

And your reply is a BLOG, from the poor source you site in the first instance.

Awesome work.

B.S upon B.S.

reply to post by burntheships

Have Spencer & Braswell found a significant difference between observations and the IPCC models?

No. Their article contains a number of errors that have since been identified by climate scientists. These errors range from the trivial (using the wrong units for the radiative flux anomaly), to the serious (treating clouds as the cause of climate change, rather than resulting from day-to-day weather; comparing a 10 year observational period with a 100 year model period and not allowing for the spread in model outputs).

Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell 2011, two climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations, thus refuting Spencer & Braswell’s claims. An independent analysis by Andrew Dessler also confirms the Trenberth & Fasullo result.

profmandia.wordpress.com...

www.realclimate.org...

The hype surrounding a new paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell is impressive (see for instance Fox News); unfortunately the paper itself is not. News releases and blogs on climate denier web sites have publicized the claim from the paper’s news release that “Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming”. The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.

This points out how Spenser et al got through the peer review system. They used a Georgraphy Journal rather than one that deals with the actual science?

About Remote Sensing

Aims

Remote Sensing (ISSN 2072-4292) publishes regular research papers, reviews, letters and communications covering all aspects of the remote sensing process, from instrument design and signal processing to the retrieval of geophysical parameters and their application in geosciences.

Would you go to a mechanic for a root canal?

I could keep going with link after link but your capacity for ignorance, mis-information, and blatant lies seems immeasurable so I won't bother.

reply to post by burntheships


You can edit all you want B.S.

I have linked a rebuttle that shows that errors.
You just didn't read them.

And your response is from a Blog, and opinion piece that does nothing but present hyperbole.

again, here is the rebuttle to Spenser et al.

www.realclimate.org...

This one by....OMG a scientist.
www.cgd.ucar.edu...

Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth is a Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. From New Zealand, he obtained his Sc. D. in meteorology in 1972 from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a lead author of the 1995,

And......OMG another scientist.

www.cgd.ucar.edu...

Dr. J.T. Fasullo is a Project Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section and actively collaborates with various scientists, both here at NCAR (e.g. Dr. Kevin Trenberth) and elsewhere*. He obtained his B.S. in Applied and Engineering Physics from Cornell Univeristy and his Ph.D. from the Univeristy of Colorado under the supervision of Dr. Peter J. Webster.

Wrong again B.S.



profmandia.wordpress.com...

BTW, just so you completely understand the hypocracy of your position, you entire OP is an ad hom attack.


Don't bother reading the links, you won't understand them.

Simply quote mine an argument, cut and paste.
Then I'll return and show you how wrong you are, again.

It seems fun playing this game because I always end up right.