The GIG is up on the IPCC and the tweaked NASA data

a reply to: Justoneman

Famous Physicist and Climate experts are given a chance to speak for more than mass media time limits.

So, they would rather speak than actually write a rebuttal? Odd, most scientists seem to prefer the opposite. Writing is usually a better way to communicate scientific matters. It allows for references which can be followed, for example.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Justoneman

Oil and coal are bad but you're willing to use their sources to debunk the thing that states it's time for their industry to go? And you want us all to trust your logic? I don't think so.

I collect data so at this point after looking at all this material for literally years that I can clearly see two things> The data was "tweaked" and the IPCC scientist who authored the data state clearly they were not allowed to help write the now erroneous conclusions some of you quote as facts.

a reply to: Justoneman

The data was "tweaked" and the IPCC scientist who authored the data state clearly they were not allowed to help write the now erroneous conclusions some of you quote as facts.

How does one "author" data? I thought data was collected.
"Authoring" sounds awfully close to fabricating.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Famous Physicist and Climate experts are given a chance to speak for more than mass media time limits.

So, they would rather speak than actually write a rebuttal? Odd, most scientists seem to prefer the opposite. Writing is usually a better way to communicate scientific matters. It allows for references which can be followed, for example.

Don't be so unkind to the facts as to think you can avoid a source of data from the actual authors, of the disputed information, that is being held back from the public and think that a pompous opinion from one who is not in the fray will win the day in a debate Phage. I have been reviewing your data sources and discussing the data with my peers who have the right degrees and you are out of your league till you view the scientist discussion on the way their data is bastardized.

a reply to: Justoneman

Don't be so unkind to the facts as to think you can avoid a source of data from the actual authors

See, that's what I want. A data source that can be studied. Not someone talking about the data.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

The data was "tweaked" and the IPCC scientist who authored the data state clearly they were not allowed to help write the now erroneous conclusions some of you quote as facts.

How does one "author" data? I thought data was collected.
"Authoring" sounds awfully close to fabricating.

WHERE IS PHAGE? In my world, the real Phage researches the information and thinks it out then shows reasonable data to support a position that might be the opposite. Phage would not agree with proven liars without even reviewing the new information presented (removes tongue from cheek).

a reply to: Justoneman

Yes the data is adjusted... that's not hidden. It's done openly, there's no cloaked figure rubbing his hands together and adjusting the data maliciously. Do you know why the data is 'tweaked'?

a reply to: Justoneman

Phage would not agree with proven liars without even reviewing the new information presented (removes tongue from cheek).

What proven liars would that be? I don't like liars much.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Don't be so unkind to the facts as to think you can avoid a source of data from the actual authors

See, that's what I want. A data source that can be studied. Not someone talking about the data.

The raw data in that last thread was real what did you do with that? This report that the Al Gore shill says is bad has more raw NASA data from a totally different location if you look at it. I SAY OIL IS BAD and we need this car that is in this thread. We should not keep paying to rape the ground for greedy bastards and you go all crickets on that.

a reply to: Justoneman

The raw data in that last thread was real what did you do with that?

I saw it. I guess it's not a big secret, huh?

I also understand why it is of not much use in it's raw form. You also seem to understand why that is, since you have among other things, ranted about problems with how some stations are situated.

I SAY OIL IS BAD and we need this that car that is in this thread not to keep paying to rape the ground for greedy bastards and you to all crickets on that.

Oh. Sorry. I thought I had made it clear that I think burning fossil fuels is a bad thing. Is that what all this is about?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Justoneman

Yes the data is adjusted... that's not hidden. It's done openly, there's no cloaked figure rubbing his hands together and adjusting the data maliciously. Do you know why the data is 'tweaked'?

DING DING DING but yet you think it is OK???

The EPA database culls tweaked data and will rain holy hell down on the perps for any data like Pb data or say SO2 data if it is NOT RAW data.

a reply to: Justoneman

The EPA database culls tweaked data and will rain holy hell down on the perps for any data like Pb data or say SO2 data if it is NOT RAW data.

Well, that's because there are regulations on emissions. There are no regulations on attempting to produce data on temperatures when it is known that the stations (some of which have been in place for 50 years) have inherent biases. But, as you have pointed out, the raw data is available.

a reply to: Justoneman

Maybe this story may be of interest to the thread and your argumentation with the high priests of the Church of Warmingology:

James Lovelock - Wikipedia

Here is the interesting excerpts:

"
In an April 2012 interview, aired on MSNBC, Lovelock stated that he had been "alarmist", using the words “All right, I made a mistake,” about the timing of climate change and noted the documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the book The Weather Makers as examples of the same kind of alarmism. Lovelock still believes the climate to be warming although the rate of change is not as he once thought, he admitted that he had been “extrapolating too far." He believes that climate change is still happening, but it will be felt farther in the future.[28] Of the claims “the science is settled” on global warming he states:[39]

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it."[39]

He criticizes environmentalists for treating global warming like a religion.[39]

“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed

“I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”[39]

In the MSNBC article Lovelock is quoted as proclaiming:[28]

"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened;" he continues

"The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said

The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time ... it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that", he added.[28]

In a follow up interview Lovelock stated his support for natural gas; he now favors fracking as a low-polluting alternative to coal.[18][39] He opposes the concept of "sustainable development", where modern economies might be powered by wind turbines, calling it meaningless drivel.[39][40] He keeps a poster of a wind turbine to remind himself how much he detests them.[18]
"

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

The raw data in that last thread was real what did you do with that?

I saw it. I guess it's not a big secret, huh?

I also understand why it is of not much use in it's raw form. You also seem to understand why that is, since you have among other things, ranted about problems with how some stations are situated.


HOLY CRAP, NO , tweaked data is UNUSABLE.. if you have to tweak it and misuse the scientific process (See Feynman's quotes again i say) it is giant fail.

I SAY OIL IS BAD and we need this that car that is in this thread not to keep paying to rape the ground for greedy bastards and you to all crickets on that.

Oh. Sorry. I thought I had made it clear that I think burning fossil fuels is a bad thing. Is that what all this is about?

You made it clear that you think the IPCC is right and i am offering you solid proof otherwise. Yet, you are suddenly pretending to be too lazy to view the scientist speak about it. The same ones being shut out from you everywhere else. Now Europeans are getting after them too if you bother to follow the most recent information available to you that is not being manipulated by the leaders of the IPCC.

a reply to: PeterMcFly
Yes, we know that some scientists disagree.
That is the case in just about every branch of science.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

The EPA database culls tweaked data and will rain holy hell down on the perps for any data like Pb data or say SO2 data if it is NOT RAW data.

Well, that's because there are regulations on emissions. There are no regulations on attempting to produce data on temperatures when it is known that the stations (some of which have been in place for 50 years) have inherent biases. But, as you have pointed out, the raw data is available.

Are you saying it is ok to fudge the data because that is how this reads to me? AND it is ok to not look at the whole data set that geologist teach at the University's?

a reply to: Justoneman

You made it clear that you think the IPCC is right and i am offering you solid proof otherwise.

No you aren't. You are offering a movie in which, apparently, a few scientists express their disagreement with the IPCC conclusions. Apparently.

a reply to: PeterMcFly

ty that is a nice addition to the discussion!!

Star for you.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

You made it clear that you think the IPCC is right and i am offering you solid proof otherwise.

No you aren't. You are offering a movie in which, apparently, a few scientists express their disagreement with the IPCC conclusions. Apparently.

You refuse to understand? Not any few Phage THE VERY SCIENTISTS that generated the IPCC data that was then LIED about. Those scientists are the ones not some fly by nights doing shill work.

a reply to: Justoneman

Are you saying it is ok to fudge the data because that is how this reads to me?

Not exactly. I'm saying that when dealing with a dataset which is known to have inherent biases due to weaknesses in instrumentation it is important to account for those biases. As pointed out, the algorithms used to deal with those biases produce both higher and lower temperatures than the raw data demonstrates. As pointed out, statistical analysis of both the raw data and the adjusted data show that the trends which appear are valid.

Since this is the only surface data which is available there are three options; use raw data which is known to be faulty, attempt to compensate for the inherent biases, or just say there is no useful data. In attempting to track temperature trends, which one is most viable?

AND it is ok to not look at the whole data set that geologist teach at the University's?

What "whole dataset" are you referring to?