Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Revie

ZOMG You guys! The Earth is totallu cooling!!!1

 

Since climategte ended up proving jack(*)(*)(*)(*) I'm going to go with a no

 

Which is why the deniers are drowning in the argument alone, from their own "noise".

 

I thought it was cow farts....

UN finds cow flatulence produces more greenhouse gas than cars

Who knows what they will blame next.

 

Just as Obamacare has nothing to do with providing healthcare, the "Global Warming" crusade has nothing to do with protecting the planet.

Its about controlling another huge chunk of the economy and weakening the economic freedom of American citizens by force feeding them a deficient and expensive alternative.

If you cant see that fact then, I'm sorry, but you are an idiot.

And I don't mean that as an insult I mean it as the literal definition of the word; an intellectually disabled person who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.

 

False

Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About 'Climate-gate'



Science depends on good quality of data. It also relies on replication and sharing data. But the last couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations. Computer hackers have obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. These e-mails, which have now been confirmed as real, involved many researchers across the globe with ideologically similar advocates around the world. They were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims. The academics here also worked closely with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and Professor Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Professor Jones talks to Professor Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series...to hide the decline [in temperature]." Professor Mann admitted that this was the exchange that he had and explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem, 'and not something secret.'" While the New York Times apparently buys this explanation, it is hard to see the explanation for "to hide the decline."

And there is a lot more. In another exchange, Professor Jones tells Professor Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Professor Jones further urges Professor Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s controversial assessment report: "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re: [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?" In another e-mail, Professor Jones told Professor Mann and Professor Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona and Raymond S. "Ray" Bradley at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

Professor Jones complains to another academic: "I did get an e-mail from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting e-mails" and "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." We only have e-mails from Professor Jones' institution, and, with his obvious approach to delete files; we have no idea what damaging information has been lost.

Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discusses in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that would otherwise be seen in the results. Professor Mann sent Professor Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he is sending shouldn't be shown to others because the results support critics of global warming. Time after time the discussions refer to hiding or destroying data.

Other global warming advocates also privately acknowledge what they won’t concede publicly, that temperature changes haven’t been consistent with their models. Dr. Kevin Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and prominent man-made global warming advocate, wrote in an e-mail: “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

There were also been discussions to silence academic journals that publish research skeptical of significant man-made global warming. Professor Mann wrote: "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." Other emails refer to efforts to exclude contrary views from publication in scientific journals. Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute, told The Wall Street Journal: "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical."

The New York Times argues: "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here." -- This from the same news organization that regularly publishes classified government documents! Yet, these e-mails were covered by England's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released when they were requested. Hiding data, destroying information, and doctoring their results raise real questions about many American academics at universities such as Pennsylvania State University, University of Arizona, and University of Massachusetts at Amherst. When at all possible available data must be shared.

Usually academic research is completely ignored by the general public but in this case proposed regulations, costing trillions of dollars, are being based on many of these claimed research results. This coordinated campaign to hide scientific information appears unprecedented.

 

More ignorant statements. Its not called the 97/98 El Nino. Its called the 98/99 El Nino. The graph clearly shows that the temperature peak occurs post 98. So stop lying!

My graph starts in lat 96 which during which temperature was still in a strong La Nina response. For the ignorant let me fill you in. There is a lag between the ENSO index which starts as a shift in trade winds and the actual global temperature response.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah that is why support for your movement tanked.

 

If you watch this video I have posted many times on here from start to finish, the scientists have that evidence physically in their possession. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-age-of-warming/ Which for some reason if you think they are lying, then I challenge the naysayers to produce their own physical evidence contrary to the evidence presented in this video.

 

There were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. The fossilized remains of both don't lie. Something cause the Earth to warm to that extent, man didn't exist and the fossils for oil were still walking around and growing from the ground. So what caused the Earth to warm that much? We know through indisputable fact that there were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. You can't rule out that the same process isn't happening again and nothing we can do will matter anyway.

Deforestation is likely a driver of any man made warming far more than any emissions. An area the size of England, Wales and Scotland (50 million acres) is cut down every year around the world. Trees are nature's carbon sinks. When that much carbon sink is removed every year, they are fighting a losing battle by simply controlling emissions. Unless the main thrust of climate change "control" if that's possible, is putting a stop to deforestation, don't bother us with get rich quick, money for thin air ripoff schemes.

 

I'm not cherry picking. I'm picking the time frame that warmmongers scientists said was beyond natural variability 17 years. if you dont like where they set the goal posts go (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) to them.

Extending the trend to 20 just shows that warmming occured almost 2 decades ago. Like I have often said warmongers live in the 90s. Not a single elementary age child has ever experienced global warming.

Your tens of thousands of scientists bears about as much weight as our claim of trillions of tons of CO2. Pure made up hyperbole by someone whos credibility is zero.

 

While I know you are just trolling.


Thats 12 years of data. Its only a matter of time till we aren't talking about a pause but cooling. Actually the whispers have already started.

 

sure no problem.

Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About 'Climate-gate'



Science depends on good quality of data. It also relies on replication and sharing data. But the last couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations. Computer hackers have obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. These e-mails, which have now been confirmed as real, involved many researchers across the globe with ideologically similar advocates around the world. They were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims. The academics here also worked closely with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and Professor Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Professor Jones talks to Professor Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series...to hide the decline [in temperature]." Professor Mann admitted that this was the exchange that he had and explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem, 'and not something secret.'" While the New York Times apparently buys this explanation, it is hard to see the explanation for "to hide the decline."

And there is a lot more. In another exchange, Professor Jones tells Professor Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Professor Jones further urges Professor Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s controversial assessment report: "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re: [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?" In another e-mail, Professor Jones told Professor Mann and Professor Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona and Raymond S. "Ray" Bradley at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

Professor Jones complains to another academic: "I did get an e-mail from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting e-mails" and "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." We only have e-mails from Professor Jones' institution, and, with his obvious approach to delete files; we have no idea what damaging information has been lost.

Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discusses in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that would otherwise be seen in the results. Professor Mann sent Professor Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he is sending shouldn't be shown to others because the results support critics of global warming. Time after time the discussions refer to hiding or destroying data.

Other global warming advocates also privately acknowledge what they won’t concede publicly, that temperature changes haven’t been consistent with their models. Dr. Kevin Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and prominent man-made global warming advocate, wrote in an e-mail: “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

There were also been discussions to silence academic journals that publish research skeptical of significant man-made global warming. Professor Mann wrote: "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." Other emails refer to efforts to exclude contrary views from publication in scientific journals. Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute, told The Wall Street Journal: "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical."

The New York Times argues: "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here." -- This from the same news organization that regularly publishes classified government documents! Yet, these e-mails were covered by England's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released when they were requested. Hiding data, destroying information, and doctoring their results raise real questions about many American academics at universities such as Pennsylvania State University, University of Arizona, and University of Massachusetts at Amherst. When at all possible available data must be shared.

Usually academic research is completely ignored by the general public but in this case proposed regulations, costing trillions of dollars, are being based on many of these claimed research results. This coordinated campaign to hide scientific information appears unprecedented.

 

12 years according to most climatologists is not enough time to construct a proper climate trend. Not to mention in that most of those years are in the top 10 warmest years on record:

 

No one is denying that climate changes happen naturally. The evidence shows this particular event is man made.

 

El Nino started in 1997. It's really not hard to look this stuff up. Why are you making it up as you go?

 

Must kill all cows before they kill off mankind!

 

Cutting down 50 million acres of carbon sink every years is man made, what do you plan to do about it.

 

I know they say 17 years but when I use the 17 years that they set as the goal posts to you accuse me of cherry picking. You have no shame do you?

A very short record and a very adjusted record but I digress. Warm, warmed, warming, as usual warmmonger suck at suffixes. We warmed in this time called the 90s. Again I don't know why you are so obsessed with the 90s. Saying that the past decade was the warmest on record doesn't mean that it has actually warmed. Just that it hasn't cooled much.

- - - Updated - - -

What physical evidence?

 

That table is before 2012 too.

Mother nature has proven global warming, by the plant life migrating northward in the northern hemisphere.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120604.html
In just a few decades shrubs in the Arctic tundra have turned into trees as a result of the warming Arctic climate, creating patches of forest which, if replicated across the tundra, would significantly accelerate global warming.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/mangroves-move-florida’s-coast
Florida’s mangrove forests are on the move. Satellite images from the past three decades reveal that these diverse coastal ecosystems have crept up the state’s Atlantic coast thanks to rising winter temperatures.

Here is mother nature responding to global warming. Maybe Mother Nature is part of the scam too

 

The ENSO index shifted in 1997. The ENSO index and the global temperature response are two different things. The first thing that causes the ENSO to shift is changes in trade winds temperatures come later.

No surprise that you are ignorant of what the ENSO index is.

 

Are you really going to argue that thousands of scientists haven't done studies linked to the effects of climate change over the past 40 years? Seriously? Go to ANY university research page and see how many of their projects have something to do with the effects of climate change?


An is this Nature article enough proof for you that trillions of tonnes of co2 have been pumped into the air? Jesus.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/nature08019.html


And yes. You are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing cherry picking your graphs. You cite one study that says that 17 years is the MINIMUM needed or a trend and then decide that is the end all, never mind you KNOW that the 1997/1998 El Niño will spin your results the way you want.

And elementary kids have experienced 9 of the 10 hottest years on record. So once again you are full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Consevationists have been planting mangroves exactly where your scientists claims that AGW is causing them to grow. If anything your link is proof of the failure of peer review. The author lied and said that there were no human influences in the area and the journal took him at his word. A quick internet search would have shown them that there was as massive restoration project.

That is one of the biggest problems with peer review. It has no protections for authors flat out lying and fraud. The process assumes that the author is being honest and any mistakes are honest mistakes. There is no defense against fraud as seen in your linked study.

What is worse is that I have already shown you this in a previous post, you never refuted it as you cant the conservation efforts are obvious, yet you continue to post the fraud.

What does that say about you? Is it okay to post a lie when you know its a lie? Is that moral in your book?

 

Look in the mirror before accusing others of lieing. My link has satellite images, you have no link, just casting aspersions.

 

Yes, and you will say the debate is over! And then tell us that is how science works, which we all know is a lie.

Science is always questioning, something you warmists seem to ignore