IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming

reply to post by Coeus

Well now here's the thing.
IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, yes?

So tell me - who has been raising taxes under the pretext of combatting climate change, and then spending less than 5% of the money raised by these taxes on environmental issues?

The IPCC is a political entity, and as such, cannot be trusted - you think they are going to hire scientists whose views are contrary to the message they want to get out there?

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by melatonin

 

Come on mate, despite what you say, you know as well as anyone that skewed and false data has been presented for years to further the AGW agenda.

[edit on 17/11/2008 by budski]

Just on the subject od DATA and accuracy. How is the record of PRISON PLANET and THE DAILY TELEGRAPH for reporting and presenting events and information with 100% accuracy. I mean, if we use the rational you use with GISS/NOAA then PP and the Daily Tele are useless as reliable sources.

I also noted that the error was for a region, and not for the entire globe.

It soon came to light that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month.

I love this quote though.

in the Arctic, despite satellite imagery clearly showing that Arctic sea ice had massively expanded its coverage by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany, since summer 2007.

PRISONPLANET
WOW. Imagine the Arctic expanding its sea ice by 30% after summer. I mean what could possibly happen after summer. I wonder if the winter after the summer was responsible for more ice forming. 2007 was a big year for melts in the arctic. So was 2008. I wonder if we'll see satelites showing another 30% increase in Ice after the 2008 summer that mysteriously occurs during winter.
BTW since we are sourcing UK tabloids, i won't post any science, as I know the Redneck is wary of those pesky "maker upers fiction people". I wonder if Prison Planet ever makes stuff up?

Usually the Arctic icecap recedes in summer and then grows back in winter. These findings suggest the period in which the ice renews itself has become much shorter.

Dr Katharine Giles, who led the study and is based at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at University College London (UCL), said the thickness of Arctic sea ice had shown a slow downward trend during the previous five winters but then accelerated.

She said: “After the summer 2007 record melting, the thickness of the winter ice also nose-dived. What is concerning is that sea ice is not just receding but it is also thinning.”

The research, reported in Geophysical Research Letters, showed that last winter the average thickness of sea ice over the whole Arctic was 26cm (10%) less than the average thickness of the previous five winters.

However, sea ice in the western Arctic lost about 49cm of thickness. This region saw the Northwest Passage become ice-free and open to shipping for the first time in 30 years during the summer of 2007.

Timesonline.co.uk





[edit on 18-11-2008 by atlasastro]

reply to post by atlasastro


Yes, and that one region, as you put it, will affect the global mean.

If they hadn't been caught out, they would have continued with their claims.

Like it or not, they got it wrong AGAIN.

Obfuscating and attacking the source isn't going to change that one little bit.

Originally posted by budski


Obfuscating and attacking the source isn't going to change that one little bit.

You are right. GW is real and trying to attack it or obscure the reality of it by attacking one or two sources in amongst the many, many, many that concur, will not change this. I am glad we agree.

reply to post by atlasastro

BTW since we are sourcing UK tabloids, i won't post any science, as I know the Redneck is wary of those pesky "maker upers fiction people". I wonder if Prison Planet ever makes stuff up?

Did someone mention my name?

I can answer this one, atlasastro. PrisonPlanet is a shock sheet based on conspiracies, similar to the way Howard Stern is shock radio based on sex. Of course, if Howard Stern were to say that Global Warming was real, man-made, and the sole result of elevated CO2 levels, somehow I would expect him to get a position as spokesman for the IPCC.

Now, I know you would just love to sit and post all day about how lousy the source is, and how silly it is that people are not listening to the Inter governmental Panel on Climate Change like good little dummies, but I prefer to look a little deeper. That's called 'science', btw, when one looks deeper into physical anomalies reported in order to better understand and predict said anomalies. Exposing corruption in shock sheets is more like 'politics', or at least 'journalism'.

We have this theory called Global Warming. Apparently, according to empirical data, temperatures on average across the planet have been steadily but slowly rising for the past several decades, and the reason is that CO2 levels have risen as well due to the Industrial Revolution. OK, let's run with that.

CO2 is a slight greenhouse gas which makes up 0.038% of our atmosphere. We know this. CO2 levels have been (and thus probably are) rising. We know this too. We have some apparent correlation between historic rising temperatures and historic rising CO2 levels. We don't know this, but we have good indicators it is true. What we do not know is whether a) Heating tends followed CO2 trends, indicating some sort of link from CO2 to heat, b) CO2 levels followed heat increases, indicating a reverse link, or c) The two trends were both the result of another type of phenomena.

The theory under consideration has not been proved, but it has not been disproved by this. So now we begin monitoring CO2 levels vs. temperature. We see a fairly steady (discounting seasonal variations) rise in CO2 levels, and we see a sporadic but slightly upward trend in temperature levels. That temperature trend, however, is leveling off, or at least appears to be, in the last decade even though CO2 levels are still rising. Until we know the results of this apparent leveling, we have still not proven or disproven Global Warming.

Now we have a report that the Antarctic Ice is melting away, exactly as predicted by AGW models (guesses). That lends credibility to the theory. But wait, then we discover that the melting is occurring along certain limited areas only, and that overall the ice mass is growing. Oh, now that would indicate a problem with the theory. So we have conflicting data.

Then we find out that Arctic ice mass is melting at an alarming rate. Again, evidence for AGW. But wait, the mass is actually increasing after declining for some years, and that melting is limited to a couple of apparent anomalous areas where volcanic activity is being recorded under the ocean surface. So again, no real 'proof'.

So let's give the benefit of the doubt and go along with that old favorite of 'let's do something anyway, because it won't hurt to try'. Then we find out it will hurt something to try, because the proposed solutions are to stop the use of energy as much as possible (which includes in at least some cases, government monitoring of personal thermostats), reduction in the number of and power and safety of (through the use of thinner material to manufacture them) automobiles, higher prices on energy (to encourage efficiency), and a global taxation system on those evil producers of this toxic gas (which is necessary for life to exist).

Now, even that would be entertainable, until someone developed carbon scrubbers. A nice little box that removes carbon dioxide, that evil gas that is going to kill us all, from the air directly. Eureka! No more Global Warming, because now we can simply pull all that excess CO2 out of the air. Sorry, no, those things are not going to fix the problem, because the problem is more about using less energy than cleaning the CO2 out of the air. The next logical question would seem to be: "What are we going to do to stop the problem?" Answer: "A global carbon credit tax will save us." Question: "What will the tax money go to that will save us?" Answer: "We don't know yet, don't worry about it."

Now, we have reports of thermometers being set next to hot air exhausts from A/C units (in direct violation of the requirements for thermometer placement for temperature observations), data being manipulated, data from one month being used for another month (which is traditionally colder due to seasonal changes), and who seems to keep popping back to the forefront of these problems? Hansen, who is a chief advisor to Albert Gore, Jr., who in turn has placed himself as the lead spokesman (in his mind anyway) for AGW theory. Then it comes to light that Mr. Gore, who has been unemployed for the most part since his failed Presidential bid in 2000, has invested heavily in the carbon credits he is endorsing so fiercely. Then it comes to light that Mr. Gore also is living in a private mansion that requires enough energy to run a village and is using a private jet to spread his message of 'energy conservation'. And when he is confronted about this, his response is that it is not a problem that he alone is producing many times more carbon dioxide than average Americans he is lecturing to, because he bought carbon credits.

The theory has now been debunked, if not for purely scientific reasons alone, for reasons of continued impropriety and fraud. But hey, we can ignore all that and start fresh. Let's just toss out the carbon credit idea and concentrate on how to fix Global Warming. What? No? We can't throw out bad data? We can't censure those responsible for the problem without destroying the theory?

Oh, all is not lost. We'll blame PrisonPlanet for putting the information out. That'll save AGW theory and make carbon credits all nice and acceptable again.

Yeah, right. I'm a redneck, and I can see what's going on. What's your excuse?

TheRedneck

global warming, er uh, i mean, 'climate change' is a large scale hoax.

the emperor is naked, he is wearing no clothes. none.

but of course, all politicians have to pretend they believe the global warming myth, if they dont they are 'insensitive, cruel, out of touch and selfish'...

just look what happened when sarah palin didnt comply with the fascist litmus test... she was branded 'stupid' for not knowing about the mythical 'facts' of manmade climate change, when actually she was spot on.

but, thats the america we live in today, extremist liberal fascism is in power, they are masters of double-speak and own the market on mass opinion manipulation (thanks to the actively leftist 'news' media) which is a blatant abuse of power.

thats fascism, shall we continue to pretend it isnt?

Originally posted by drock905
For what its worth Fox News is reporting this story.

I imagine the other news networks are probably reporting it also.

i suppose you're implying that fox isnt credible for reporting what the MSM looks the other way on?

sure, the MSM who refuses to inquire into anything that casts the left wing agenda into a questionable light is the credible source...

what else can you expect from the major wing of the democratic party campaign (msnbc, cnn, npr, etc...)?

do you pretend that the MSM is unbiased and impartial?

this isn't the first time they got caught, by any stretch, AGW is appears to be permeated by a culture of politically motivated manipulation.

a search will do wonders, but just off the top of my head, the following threads come to my mind:

Freezing Heat

recent article exposing the travesty of GW while mentioning copy&paste 'research' ie. manipulation of data, concerning remote locations' readings

Warming Since 1990 Link To Data Collection

1st Co Chair of IPCC admits politics rules not science

so called environmental organisations are guilty as well, because they do nothing to f-ex. stop destructive biofuel plantation, including GM crop use

Planet saved without taxation! Well, almost...

it's not about CO2 at all, it's about Money and it's about Power. they appear to be willing to use any means to achieve their ends, which are all but obscure at this point.

begs the question what they are trying to conceal, but it's imho safe to expect that the reason is the nefarious nature of their goals, which they tend to advance through the usual confrontation and infighting tactics so common in politics. a typical example can be found here

Originally posted by Demandred
statistics can go this way or that way depending on which side of the coin is paying for them but the fact of the matter is if you want evidence of global warming just look at the enviroments around us coral bleeching rise in ocean tempreatures, increase in marine jelly balls (sounds funny but google it)

sunscreen is bleaching corals. that does not rule out water temperature as another cause, but things are not that clear at all, because it's a rather powerful toxin to corals.

link

[edit on 2008.11.18 by Long Lance]

I dont know about nasa or Al Gore money pumping fools machine but here in Mexico city this has been the coldest year in my life we had single digit temps in JULY rains til 3 weeks ago and today its 4 degrees C.

Global warming...yeah right..

BTW I went to yosemite national park this year in Feb., never have seen that much snow in 20 years.

Great Nasa is involved. Now it's beyond doubt that global warming is an utter scam.

Originally posted by atlasastro

Originally posted by budski


Obfuscating and attacking the source isn't going to change that one little bit.

You are right. GW is real and trying to attack it or obscure the reality of it by attacking one or two sources in amongst the many, many, many that concur, will not change this. I am glad we agree.

Something else that isn't going to change. No matter how much you pay in taxes. And pay to companies that refuse to take a hit to the profits, but would rather skim more off the top of your wage packet. No matter how much cash gets squeezed out of you, barely any of it is going to go on improving things.

Global warming is making a lot of people rich, and making the poor even poorer.

Edit: Sorry for the double post. I thought I was editing the original post.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by unnamedninja]

Well the debate isn't about IF global warming is happening.

The debate is if humans cause it.

However, just because we might not have caused it doesn't mean we can't find ways to stop it or slow it down.

But this does disturb me because you should be able to trust scientists if no one else.

reply to post by Jezus


Hmmm

Have a read of Rednecks post further up the page.

There is no definitive proof that GW is happening at all, much less if humans are to blame for it - I know some would have you believe that it is beyond debate, but that is simply NOT the case.

The people who shout loudest about it being proven are the ones who have the most invested in the theory - and that's all it is, a theory.

Information about the original findings can be found here
Steve McIntyre is the guy who laid waste to the infamous "hockey stick" theory - still beloved of some AGW proponents despite being shown to be nonsense.

Amazing find op, this just shows how the PTB will be pushing a Carbon tax on all citizens. It's outrageous that people believe and follow this trite.

-Ign0RanT

reply to post by Long Lance

Coral bleaching is the loss of color of corals, due to stress-induced expulsion of symbiotic unicellular algae or due to the loss of pigmentation within the algae. The corals that form the structure of the great reef ecosystems of tropical seas depend on a symbiotic relationship with photosynthesizing unicellular algae called zooxanthellae that live within their tissues. Zooxanthellae give coral its particular coloration, depending on the clade living within the coral. Under stress, corals may expel their zooxantheallae, which leads to a lighter or completely white appearance, hence the term "bleached".

Coral bleaching is a vivid sign of corals responding to stress which can be induced by any of:

increased or reduced water temperatures (often attributed to global warming)
increased solar irradiance (photosynthetically active radiation and ultraviolet band light)
changes in water chemistry (in particular ocean acidification)
starvation caused by a decline in zooplankton levels as a result of overfishing.
increased sedimentation (can be contributed to silt runoff)
pathogen infections
changes in salinity

The Institute's Doctor Ray Berkelmans found signs of elevated sea temperatures in the tropics which threaten to bleach the reef's coral.

RAY BERKELMANS: There's some signs of unusually warm water building there. The winds are not going the right way … they're pushing sort of westerly instead of the normal easterly trade winds that we would normally get.

So those signs are a little bit worrying.

ANDREW GEOGHEGAN: Just explain to us what effect coral bleaching has on the reef.

RAY BERKELMANS: Well coral bleaching is a warm water stress event, generally speaking. It basically signals the breakdown in symbiosis between the coral and the algae that it needs to survive on. They get most of their food from the algae. And when that breakdown happens in the symbiosis, the coral has basically lost its food source, and if the stress is long enough or severe enough the coral can die.

ANDREW GEOGHEGAN: Recent research found that up to one fifth of world's coral reefs have been destroyed, while more than two thirds are in danger of dying.

Rising ocean temperatures in key hurricane breeding grounds of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are due primarily to human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, according to a study published online in the September 11 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Using 22 different computer models of the climate system, Benjamin Santer and six other atmospheric scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, together with Tom Wigley, Gerald Meehl, and Warren Washington from the Boulder-based National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and scientists from eight other research centers, have shown that the warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) of the tropical Atlantic and Pacific oceans over the last century are linked to human activities.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by Demandred]

The brightly-coloured corals that make Australia's Great Barrier Reef one of the world's natural wonders will be largely dead by 2050 because of rising sea temperatures.

Instead of the rich environment depicted in the recent movie Finding Nemo, the coral reef will be bleached out and replaced by ordinary seaweed, costing the tourism industry billion of dollars, the report into the impact of global warming says.

Authors Hans and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg — the head of Queensland University's marine studies centre and his economist father — spent two years examining the effects of rising sea temperature on the reef for Queensland tourism authorities and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature.

Their 350-page report found no prospect of avoiding the "chilling long-term eventualities" of coral bleaching because greenhouse gases were already warming the seas as part of a process that would take decades to stop.

"Coral cover will decrease to less than five percent on most reefs by the middle of the century under even the most favourable assumptions," the report said. "This is the only plausible conclusion if sea temperatures continue to rise."

Warmer sea waters make corals suffer thermal stress, eventually making them bleach and die.

more....

n important piece of the global-warming picture has come into clearer focus with a confirmation by scientists that the world's oceans have soaked up much of the warming of the last four decades, delaying its full effect on the atmosphere and thus on climate.

The warming of the deep oceans had long been predicted, and the consequent delaying effect long thought to exist.

But until now the ocean's heat absorption had not been definitively demonstrated, and its magnitude had not been determined.

The finding, by scientists at the National Oceanographic Data Center in Silver Spring, Md., is based on an analysis of 5.1 million measurements, by instruments around the world, of the top two miles of ocean waters from the mid-1950's to the mid-1990's.

The analysis, the first on a global scale, is being published today in the journal Science.

as i stated earlier just look around theres more and more ad infinitum evidence being produced by the world around us, humans need to stop being so selfish and acknowledge what we have contributed to the over all problem

reply to post by Demandred

Coral bleaching is a vivid sign of corals responding to stress which can be induced by any of:

increased or reduced water temperatures (often attributed to global warming)
increased solar irradiance (photosynthetically active radiation and ultraviolet band light)
changes in water chemistry (in particular ocean acidification)
starvation caused by a decline in zooplankton levels as a result of overfishing.
increased sedimentation (can be contributed to silt runoff)
pathogen infections
changes in salinity

Let's take these one at a time:

Water temperature: the overall oceanic temperature has raised by a scant 1.8°C (3.2°F) from 1880 through 2000, according to www.actionbioscience.org... The graph showing the increase can be found below:



Comparatively, the typical oceanic trend throughout one year along the Hawaiian coast can be found at www.nodc.noaa.gov... It shows the coastal water temperatures for Honolulu transitioned 4°F throughout a year's span (a low of 76°F and a high of 80°F, both extremes averages over the span of a month). That would indicate that the current average warming trend is less than the normal seasonal warming trend, and unlikely to be more than a footnote in any actual cause of coral bleaching.

Solar radiation: it is actually difficult to find any raw information on the solar radiation levels outside of blogs. I did run across this news report from 2003:Source: www.sciencedaily.com...

This indicates increased solar radiation may play a role in coral bleaching, but it is difficult to verify.

Oceanic acidification: Carbonic acid is actually diffult to produce in high concentrations, requiring high pressures and high concentrations of CO2 to produce. Witness the sizzle when you open a soft drink. Soft drinks are really little more than favored carbonic water, carbonic water being water with a high carbonic acid content. To produce carbonic water, CO2 is added to the water under high pressure to force it to undergo the equation: OH- + CO2 --> HCO3- (the carbonate ion which is carbonic acid).

On the other hand, hydrochloric acid (HCl) is pretty strong and easily dissolves in water under normal atmospheric conditions. Perhaps that might be a better place to look for acidification?

Zooplankton starvation: Perhaps.

Sedimentation: Perhaps, has this not been studied as a possible cause?

Pathogens: Should be easy enough to rule in or out as a possible cause.

Salinity: I know this one is easily checked. I could do it myself with equipment I own personally.

My point being, out of the possible reasons you gave for the phenomena of coral bleaching, Global Warming is the least likely to contribute in a major way to such phenomena, and is also one of the hardest (with the possible exception of solar radiation) to verify. So exactly why is so much time being spent trying to make a case for Global Warming (and specifically CO2 levels) as the culprit, and yet apparently little to none is being made to examine the other possibilities?

It would seem the purpose is to promote an ideal rather than find a cause and correct the problem.

TheRedneck


[edit on 20-11-2008 by TheRedneck]

One thing that has be implied here, at least from my quick read, is that Hanson has benefited monetarily from carbon credits. Has he? As in actually buying and selling them? If so, would not his work be a conflict of interest?


Help me clear this up..........

I'd like to know why anyone needs some alleged "exper" to tell them if the weather is getting warmer or not.
Here we are haveing records cold temps for this time of year.
Is that part of "global warming".
We have fluctuations from year to year.
In 1962 we had a record hard freeze Dec. 15th.
In 1983 we had a about a week of freezing weather. Pipes in the house froze.
In Fla in 1985 we had 90 degree weather in December.
There have been no unseasonably hot weather since.
In 2008 we had a record almost freeze here in November. A month ahead of the usual, as did other parts of the country.
(it was 32 deg or so all nite here)
Nothing died. My beans are still alive.

Florida no longer has citrus groves in the mid section. They have all moved South. I wonder why.