Arctic sea ice loss due to global warming II

Data? You mean data manipulation. Like using September temps too show hottest October or the lies about the Himalayas.

Then again there is very little warming the last 10 years yet according to Global Warming scientist we are still breaking temp records

 

Lies about the Himalayas? Was this the lie?



Or this?



Or this?



Remind me again who "lied". And who pointed it out. And what the truth really is. Because a truth-lover like you should know.

 

How do you define "cooking the data"?

 

No this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8468358.stm

 

So you do not deny just that humans are responsible for the positive temperature trends in the last 100 years, but that there has been no increase positive trend in temperature at all?

 

There ya go deflecting again! Stay focused. The discussion is about your "NASA report" that was not a "NASA report".
I answered your question, so now stop deflecting and answer the question:
"Do you deny that 10 years worth of data is not significant?"

 

So according to your source:
1. There was a mistake, but no lie.
2. Climate scientists noticed the error.
3. The truth is, Himalayan glaciers are losing 1 meter of ice per year, among the fastest in the world.
4. "global warming is 'unequivocal' remains beyond reproach"

 

You did nothing. Spencer used a NASA report. You are the one spinning and ignoring the facts

 

It was a lie but as always the GW community claims a mistake. Just like using September temps to show hottest October was a mistake.

When ever they get caught in data manipulation or lies they claim it was a mistake. It is getting old they are trying to deceive the public and when caught claim it was a mistake

 

And you still did not answer my question!

"Do you deny that 10 years worth of data is not significant?"

 

You still are avoiding Spencer and Durban. 10 years of Data we do not know how much has been manipulated by the GW scientists. They no longer have any credibility.

In Durban they claim reducing CO2 will lower temp. Where is the proof for that. More lies from the UN and GW community

 

I am not avoiding Spencer, I am attempting to address Spencer. Are you now claiming Spencer is manipulating data?

And you still did not answer my question!

"Do you deny that 10 years worth of data is not significant?"

 

You are denying the fact he is using NASA report. Hes findings come from NASA

As I said how do we know if the data is true or data manipulation

 

I already answered your question. Now answer mine:

"Do you deny that 10 years worth of data is not significant?"

 

No you answered nothing. Spencer used NASA report to show the IPCC models were wrong,

If this is true how can we believe the data for the last 10 years. It is all based on data manipulation

Show me proof that lowering CO2 will lower temp as the UN is claiming at Durban

 

Finally you got it right! Spencer used 10 years of data. 10 years is not long enough to be significant for temperature trends. Spencer manipulated the data by using a time period that is too short to be meaningful. Spencer's conclusions are not valid because the time was too short. Because Spencer's conclusions were invalid, he did not show the IPCC models wrong.
Congratulations! You are on your way to understanding.

From a skeptics blog:

my emphasis.

So you see, even skeptics are have a problem with the conclusions of S&b paper.

 

I don’t see what MannieD’s run-on question has to do with falsified data.

ClimateGate 1.0 and 2.0 have called every bit of Warmer “science” into question. The Warmers have failed to clean house. They whitewashed the charlatans and put them back into central positions. Is there any wonder that none of their “science” gets any respect at all?

The extreme “remedies” sought by the Warmers (economic suicide) require that the science must be not only accurate but pristine and inarguable. And it requires that the theories be exposed to experimental tests, not computer programs.

 

Two years later, and still not one denier can point to a single datum in any peer-reviewed journal that is fraudulent, fake, or hoaxed. Not one number. Anywhere.

Wake up and smell the coffee. We're already at peak oil, and we may be staring peak coal in the face too. Transitioning off of fossil fuels isn't economic suicide, it's economic necessity. The nation that does it first wins. The nations that sit on the sideline will lose. Climate deniers and their paymasters in Big Oil are rooting for the US to lose, and lose big.

There's no such thing as science that's inarguable. You're thinking of religion.

Experiment: dump 1.2 trillion tons of CO2 into the air. Result: global temperatures go up. Looks pretty obvious to me.

 

Since wind and solar don't work, and hydro and nuclear are unacceptable and nobody has made fusion work except in thermonuclear bombs, what is your alternative?

 

If you click on the > icon next to the name in the "quoted" window, you can trace the discussion back.
Shortened version: ptif claims Spencer & Braswell disproves AGW. But S&B has been criticized by mainstream and skeptical scientists because 10 year data are not significant. ptif does not understand "significant". ptif keeps claiming "falsified" data but has yet to show where and how it is falsified. Perhaps you can help him.

Inhofe promised a fraud investigation of the hacked emails. Any idea how his investigation is going? Has anyone been charged with a crime yet?
There are only 4 types of people that still believe that "ClimateGate 1.0 and 2.0 have called every bit of Warmer “science” into question."
1) Those who have not read the complete emails, and do not understand that quotes have been taken out of context to change the meaning and are relying on denier blogs for an interpretation.
2) Those who have read the complete emails but have trouble with reading comprehension.
3) Political partisans with an agenda
4) Fossil fuel "consultants" with an agenda
Which one are you, taxcutter?

Absolutely correct! We certainly demand "that the science must be not only accurate but pristine." I cannot agree with "inarguable". Scientists, being the skeptics they are, love to argue.
All science is models. F=ma is a model, an extremely simple one, but still a model. Automobiles are designed with computer programs; automobiles are built with computer programs; proteins are folded with computer programs, aircraft are design with computer models; so what, specifically is wrong with using computer programs to study climate.

 

Wind and solar work fine, thanks.

Hydro is unacceptable? Since when?
Gen IV nuclear produces no long-term waste, and LFTR can't melt down. What's unacceptable about that?

Wind, solar, and nuclear.

 

There is no such scientific experiment

 

No you move the goal posts. The NASA data shows the IPCC models are wrong

 

Here is one. Monet actually used his wife and a co-worker as part of his peer review. Peer review has also become a scam

http://www.montanaco-ops.com/index....&cntnt01showtemplate=false&cntnt01returnid=65

 

Wind turbines cost over a million dollars per unit and it takes close to 20 years just to make back the initial investment.

Without government subsidy's there would be no wind turbines. Not to mention the may cause health risks to humans and birds