It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thousands and Thousands of Scientists Can't be Behind a Hoax(AGW), Right?

page: 1
81
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+64 more 
posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Often times I have read, and heard people use this concept that "thousands upon thousands of scientists can't be behind such a hoax" when the fact is there is no need to have thousands upon thousands of scientists on a hoax in order for it to happen. All you need is to control the flow of information, or in this case the flow of "raw data."

In the excerpt below Roger A. Pielke Jr., an American political scientist and professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) noticed how CRU was doing everything possible not to release it's raw data to Steve Mcintyre, and their excuse for not releasing the raw data to him was that McIntyre was "not an academic". That has been among some of the excuses that CRU was using denying the release of the raw data to McIntyre, among others. Being an acadamic himself, Pielke decided to ask for the data himself and what CRU responded was that they no longer had the raw data. They had in fact deleted decades of raw temperature data.


We Lost the Original Data

Steve McIntyre, of ClimateAudit, is a determined individual. While this may be no fun for those who fall under his focus and happen to have something to hide, more sunlight on climate science cannot be a bad thing.
...
Obviously, the ability to do good research depends upon good data with known provenance. At the time WMO Resolution 40 was widely hailed in the atmospheric sciences community as a major step forward in data sharing and availability in support of both operations and research.

Thus it is with some surprise to observe CRU going through bizarre contortions to avoid releasing its climate data to Steve McIntyre. They first told him that he couldn't have it because he was not an academic. I found this to be a petty reason for keeping data out of the hands of someone who clearly wants to examine it for scholarly purposes. So, wanting to test this theory I asked CRU for the data myself, being a "real" academic. I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn't have the data because "we do not hold the requested information."

I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).
...

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com...

The information that you can't control you simply try to manipulate and we have seen several cases of NASA, under Hansen, and some other scientific organizations doing exactly that.

All you need is some hard core proponent scientists to be aboard with such a hoax, and some of those scientists include Jim Hansen (former head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City who retired on April 2013) Hansen had been behind many controversy for releasing false information, or errors which seemed to back his stance on AGW(Anthropogenic Global Warming) for example this

Prof. Phil Jones who was one of the many scientists responsible for not only publishing false information, but was one of the scientists who admitted in the Climate gate emails to have hidden and stopped the release of data concerning Climate Change. Some of the controversies ivolving this man include:

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...



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 Anglia's 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 UN's 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...

Michael Mann who is one of the directors of "RealClimate.org" and is the person who came up with the "Hockey Stick Graph/Hoax."

Gavin Schmidt is another of these scientists who is a strong proponent of AGW and has been behind many controversies such as his apparent belief that temperature data should be hidden.

The above are some examples of the scientists who support the claim of "AGW' and have been caught in a mire of controversies, lies, and manipulation of climate data. in the end all you really need is to control the flow of temperature data, and to just give what is called "adjusted data" which has been maniplated to back the claims behind Anthropogenic GLobal WArming.


Global Warming 'Fabricated' by NASA and NOAA

by James Delingpole and Kit Eastwood23 Jun 2014

Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming".

The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show "climate change" before and after the adjustments.

When the raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling. However, once the data has been adjusted - ie fabricated by computer models - 20th century 'global warming' suddenly looks much more dramatic.

This is especially noticeable on the US temperature records. Before 2000, it was generally accepted - even by climate activists like NASA's James Hansen - that the hottest decade in the US was the 1930s.

As Hansen himself said in a 1989 report:


In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.

However, Hansen subsequently changed his tune when, sometime after 2000, the temperatures were adjusted to accord with the climate alarmists' fashionable "global warming" narrative. By cooling the record-breaking year of 1934, and promoting 1998 as the hottest year in US history, the scientists who made the adjustments were able suddenly to show 20th century temperatures shooting up - where before they looked either flat or declining.
...

www.breitbart.com...


Other examples on how these people manipulate the data they can't control include:


What the Russian papers say
...
Russia affected by Climategate

A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as "Climategate," continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
...

en.ria.ru...

With all the lies, deception, and controversy the AGW main proponents have been found to be involved with you have to wonder why there are still so many people believing the AGW scientists.




edit on 5-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment and change title.



+34 more 
posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   


We Lost the Original Data


This sounds a lot like the IRS. We need your money, but can't even keep our own data secure. Just another criminal organization without any accountability or credibility. Nice find.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I wonder what the next money pit will be.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

The worst part is that many of their lies are so obvious yet who knows how many people still believe the AGW claims.

For example, in "recent years" sites that are in favor of AGW, and their scientists proclaim that CO2 constitutes 60%+ of the greenhouse effect. But this is not true. They do not explain that the 60% number they give is for the addition of all CO2 in all the atmosphere, even on layers of the atmosphere which are icy cold and do not affect surface temps.

The fact is that in the Troposphere, the atmospheric layer where all surface weather occurs, and which affects surface temperatures CO2 only accounts for an estimate 5% of the greenhouse effect, meanwhile "water vapor" accounts for 95%-98%. These are also just estimates because there are too many variables that affect surface temperatures and temperatures in the Troposphere.


edit on 5-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.


+29 more 
posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
One of the problems here is that there aren't "thousands and thousands of scientists" at all. There are a few hundred at best. the rest of these "scientists" sign on to the issue out of camaraderie, not any meaningful participation in the studies themselves. Most of them have NOT been involved in ANY scientific study of the issues. they may have read articles in "Nature" or "New Scientists," and because of the reputation of the journals, decided they must be right in their conclusions. That's when you see claims like, "30,000 scientists agree and signed this here petition." That includes a whole lot of "experts" in things like String Theory, which has no relationship to Global Warming at all.

A second problem is the involvement of government in the scientific process. If the government holds the purse strings, you know what is going to happen. I have seen some of the "Grant Guidelines" put out by various government agencies. Once you get through the bureaucratic speak they say essentially this: "Prove Global Warming is man made and we'll give you this money." Now what's any scientist interested in tenure and self-promotion going to do? What is any graduate student attempting to make his mark and impress his professors going to do? The result is before you.

Third, you absolutely must study this issue rather than rely on reports from the Huffington Post and the Democratic Party. You need to read what those emails in Climategate actually said. SOME of this stuff can be attributed to sloppiness. It wasn't intentional. But SOME of it is out and out fraud, and if you look at the data and examine the graphs, you can see it. I'll just give one example:

Remember the phrase "Hide the decline"? It was big a few years ago. Well, what did this actually mean? Do you know already? It's more complex than you might figure at first glance. The scientists involved constructed a complex graph that showed several different sources which, they say, prove global warming. ALL these sources pointed to a temperature rise—except one. It showed a temperature DROP. So what did they do? They showed the line as it was about to drop, but as all the other lines went up, THIS line disappeared. It never came out again.

WHY did it not come out again? Because if they had shown it, it would have been an obvious anomaly as it headed further down, not up. And like a sore thumb, it would have stuck out there and people would have asked, “But what’s this line going down?” And the scientists would have to EXPLAIN what it was. But THIS is where it gets good!



The line wasn’t any old line. It was a line showing tree ring data from contemporary times. They drilled the trees, took core samples, and the tree rings said the temperature was declining, BUT all the hard core thermometers said the temperature was rising. Well, now which was right? The temperature gauges, of course. They were hard data and the tree ring data was PROXY data, the kind of data you use when you can’t use really accurate thermometers,

Like in the past. Like the past these scientists were comparing to the present to show the temperature was rising. Beginning to get the picture here? If the tree ring data in the PRESENT was obviously wrong, how can you use it to prove temperatures in the past? Is there any bona fide reason why they wouldn’t be wrong depicting the past as well? Hence they “hid the decline” so they would not have to answer awkward questions.

And they admitted it in their Climategate emails.

Now how much more information do you need before you admit this thing is fraught with fraud? How can you dismiss this incident? How can you trust anything they say?

Now if you really are interested in this farce, you might start with The Hockey Stick Illusion; climategate and the corruption of sciemce and actually read of many similar instances. And you might read through some of those Climategate emails to get a sense of what these guys are doing to us.

Or you can just believe whatever you want.


edit on 9/5/2014 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
global warming is a sham, Pollution is the real issue.

Planets just don't ransomly engulf in flame even if *Co2* is added.

It's not like the Earth is surrounded by a glass jar. Isn't there less than 32 KM to space? Not very far IMO.
Besides holes in the ozone would let air out when ever the magnetic feild is stripped.

This occures all the time either via pollution or space anomolies.

We can't control the weather in space but we can control what we put in the enviroment around us.
The whole * Green* campagn was specifically designed to pull enviromental conservationists into it.

So that they only talk Co2 and oil spills, And leave out Poly/metals/chemicals because it would raise awareness to enviromental pollution such as tree clearing and water tampering, Geographical engineering resource management ect.
Where the real devil is hiding.

British columbia is slowly being swallowed by the very demons i mentioned. And soon the amazon will disappear.
We are not dealing with global warming, Humanity is intentionally deficating and urinating in its water bowl. Someones gunna have to clean it up, because it does not fix itself when the toxins we produce are on an industrial scale.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   


more sunlight on climate science cannot be a bad thing.


WTF? Why would anyone treat scientists as criminals when we have real criminals running our country into the ground?!

Why not put some "sunlight" on the liars and criminals in business, politics, insurance, pharmaceuticals, the oil companies etc??



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   
It's the Sun.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   
"Global warming" is just a one of many symptoms of a much more dire problem - it's like complaining about a fever when you have ebola. It's just a side effect of complex life forms. It took quite some time to formulate my opinion, but I have come to believe "life" is a force of nature, like gravity, like atrophy, like erosion - life develops on a planet when the conditions are right, and then that life consumes the planet that hosts it, eventually killing itself in the process - the "why" is a bit more esoteric. Our population has been growing at an exponential rate (along with resource consumption) since the industrial revolution, and we live on a finite planet, it doesn't take a mathematician to see the numbers don't add up.

It's a REALLY big universe out there, and I believe life is not unique to our small planet in the ass-end of the galaxy -Life has most likely rose and fell more times then we can count - we are simply another cog in the nature of the universe. You have to see the forest for the trees.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   
We are altering the climate. That is pretty well proven. We need to fix the problem though, not be creating a tax or causing good businesses harm. We need to lower consumption and make things to last.

I sound like a recording. We are effecting the climate with our actions. These changes are not only caused by carbon.

most people fudge or misapply evidence to suit their needs. The climate change deniers are worse than anyone. They usually want to continue the destruction that makes them be able to sustain their way of life. If you look at the work the deniers are involved in it usually shows a loss of income to them if this is accepted.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Our consumption isn't going to be curbed unless we address the real problem of exponential population growth, but no one really want's to confront the issue because growth = more revenue with the current social standards - people talk about governments conducting population control, but if they truly are, they are HORRIBLE at it. With every addition to our population we need more housing, more infrastructure, more economy, more land for food production, more roads for goods transportation, more vehicles for that transportation, more factories for those vehicles production etc, etc ,etc. We will eventually consume ourselves out of existence, but I believe it is simply an eventuality - it is ingrained in our biological functions.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Syyth007

I think you are right on that. We are not going to stop till we have destroyed enough that we put ourselves almost into extinction. Wait till all fresh water gets low, there will be wars like never seen before targeting the regular people, not the few on the top.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I would take AGW more seriously if it was based on hard data, and not models fueled by cherry picked data. But it is not. A computer model is not hard science. It is speculation and theory, and thus, not something I am going to jump on the bandwagon for, especially when counter studies and data have been made and presented.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

There is plenty of hard data to show that the average global temperature has risen - you can blame the sun, but the sun has been in a lull as of late - Just look around your general environment - chances are it's an entirely man-made environment - roads, homes, businesses, landscaping, what-have-you. To disbelieve we have an effect on a global scale when we have such a HUGE impact on a local scale is incredibly naive. We have been responsible for the destruction of most of the earth's environments. We have been the direct cause of many localized extinctions of plants and animals - to think this doesn't equal a larger effect on our planet as a whole is incomprehensible to me.


+3 more 
posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So, let me get this right....the spread of propaganda by the authorities regarding this subject says that humans are causing this temperature / climate phenomena, and the golden egg that can verify all of this got deleted but that is irrelevant because what the TV says is the truth on the matter.

OK, got it, thanks.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story


+9 more 
posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Unsettling enough, I am reminded of the ideology of religious extremists when dealing with Man-Made-Climate-Change enthusiasts.

In both cases, they are only going to do things for our own good.

In both cases it'll cost us, but the rewards will be wonderful.

In both cases, it's okay if we don't understand because they do understand.

In both cases, we are wrong and they are right.

In both cases, they refuse to listen to any opposing viewpoint.

In both cases, they have their literature which they think is indisputable.

In both cases, they will do anything they can to insult, debase any opposition.

In both cases, they have very narrow, myopic views.

In both cases, they put their faith into others rather than seeking it out themselves.


edit on 5-9-2014 by beezzer because: added clarification



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
The whole carbon/climate thing is about money.

Big money.

So of course the "Scientific" community is Pressing the issue with MSMalarkey propaganda.

[ Start Here and see the magic ]

Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype


Carbon Trade Exchange operates spot exchanges in multiple global environmental commodity markets, including carbon, renewable energy certificates (RECs) and water


Beijing Starts China’s Third Carbon Exchange With First Trades


[ now google: " carbon exchanges " ]



Still think there's *Really* a "Problem" ?




posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Unsettling enough, I am reminded of the ideology of religious extremists when dealing with Man-Made-Climate-Change enthusiasts.

In both cases, they are only going to do things for our own good.

In both cases it'll cost us, but the rewards will be wonderful.

In both cases, it's okay if we don't understand because they do understand.

In both cases, we are wrong and they are right.

In both cases, they refuse to listen to any opposing viewpoint.

In both cases, they have their literature which they think is indisputable.

In both cases, they will do anything they can to insult, debase any opposition.

In both cases, they have very narrow, myopic views.

In both cases, they put their faith into others rather than seeking it out themselves.



Correct on all accounts.

The one I emphasized can be seen everyday here on ATS, when those that do not "toe the line" are referred to as "Deniers" or "Climate Deniers". If you have a question, you MUST be one of THOSE. If you point out something that seems wrong or is wrong, you MUST be one of THOSE. If you DARE to have doubts or are on the fence, you MUST be one of THOSE.

Every single climate thread here on ATS shows that over and over and over. So much so that I sometimes have to scroll up and double check to make sure I'm in the Fragile Earth forum and not one dealing with religion....



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Syyth007
a reply to: rickymouse

Our consumption isn't going to be curbed unless we address the real problem of exponential population growth, but no one really want's to confront the issue because growth = more revenue with the current social standards - people talk about governments conducting population control, but if they truly are, they are HORRIBLE at it. With every addition to our population we need more housing, more infrastructure, more economy, more land for food production, more roads for goods transportation, more vehicles for that transportation, more factories for those vehicles production etc, etc ,etc. We will eventually consume ourselves out of existence, but I believe it is simply an eventuality - it is ingrained in our biological functions.




another reason perhaps history has been altered ...i would wager people on this planet have consumed themselves to close to extinction before.... this could have happened in the millions of years we have been around,who knows how many times...



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Give me control of your budget, and I'll make you say anything I want you to say.

Yet another reason to change our concept of money.



new topics

top topics



 
81
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join