United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: If the evidence of global warming is so strong why does the left manufacture so much bogus data in an attempt to prove their fairytale?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 2, 2011
Author: GATEWAY PUNDIT
Post Date: 2011-02-02 11:33:58 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 21824
Comments: 40
If the evidence of global warming is so strong why does the left manufacture so much bogus data in an attempt to prove their fairytale? This is what climate disruption global change (aka -weather) is really about… Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits the group’s primary goal is the redistribution of wealth and not environmental protection or saving the Earth. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/554439/201011191859/The-Climate-Cash-Cow.aspx Lets take a look at all the manufactured data by fraudulent people. Bogus Data by a bogus leftist… California (Hein Tran) grossly miscalculated pollution levels by 340% in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state’s clean-air standards http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/08/MNOF1FDMRV.DTL Bogus Data… UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html Bogus Data… UN pledges tighter controls after melting glaciers blunder http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/24/climate-change-un-row Bogus Data… A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ Bogus Data… The hockey stick hoax http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/01/hockey-stick-hoax_5545.html Bogus Documents… Experts Say White House ‘Misrepresented’ Views to Justify Oil Drilling Moratorium http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/10/experts-say-obama-misrepresented-views-justify-offshore-drilling-ban/ Obama’s top science adviser, John P. Holdren, advocated the “de-development” of the United States http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/51702# What they want is to ‘save’ the planet from capitalism. In other words…fundamentally transform the world into communist governance.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 28.
#7. To: no gnu taxes, rudgear, godwinson (#0)
He said no such thing. What he said was that climate policy will redistribute the world's wealth away from oil and coal producers. It's kind of ironic that you, as one of the biggest pushers of false information, are complaining about what you perceive as false information.
Bullshit. I call you climate phonies on your pack of prevarications.
I call you climate phonies on your pack of prevarications. And there are no weather sensors in the artic [sic] right?
That's not what I said, but you are too dumb to get it. Weather sensors in the Arctic are few and far between, and NONE (or so few as to be inconsequential) are located in remote, inland high areas which would give true measures of the temperature outside the populated coastal UHI where the sensors are located. If you think the sensors in the populated UHI areas correlate with those (which supposedly exist) in the high remote areas, simply provide the exact location of the sensors in both areas and demonstrate how the same readings are obtained in both areas.
so we just ignore the satellite data then?
CONCLUSIONS Analysis of the satellite data shows a statistically significant cooling trend for the past 12 to 13 years, with it not being possible to reject a flat trend (0 slope) for between 16 and 23 years. This is a length of time at which disagreement with climate models can no longer be attributed to simple LTP. On the other hand, studies cited herein have documented a 50–70 year cycle of climate oscillations overlaid on a simple linear warming trend since the mid-1800s and have used this model to forecast cooling beginning between 2001 and 2010, a prediction that seems to be upheld by the satellite and ocean heat content data. Other studies made this same prediction of transition to cooling based on solar activity indices or from ocean circulation regime changes. In contrast, the climate models predict the recent flat to cooling trend only as a rare stochastic event. The linear warming trend in these models that is obtained by subtracting the 60–70 yr cycle, while unexplained at present, is clearly inconsistent with climate model predictions because it begins too soon (before greenhouse gases were elevated) and does not accelerate as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate. This model and the empirical evidence for recent cooling thus provide a challenge to climate model accuracy.
Never mind, a quick google found the source - Anthony Watts. Chuckle. The author of the study is Craig Loehle, a forestry scientist considered an expert by the Heartland institute. He works directly for the paper industry to spin their view of climate change, and who's past efforts are chock full of mistakes. (Watts even published a correction of the above data you cited). http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/ Every time you post this B.S. data it is either blatantly false, not peer reviewed, or authored by a shill for industries trying to undercut climate change theory for economic gain. Keep at it. You keep embarrassing yourself.
Spin? Talk about ignoring the data. These maps and graphs make it clear just how brazen the fraud of the Hockey Stick is. It’s clear that the world was warmer during medieval times. Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today. These use ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. They agree with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5°C warmer world wide. What follows is a sordid tale of a graph that overthrew decades of work, conveniently fitted the climate models, and was lauded triumphantly in glossy publication after publication. But then it was crushed when an unpaid analyst stripped it bare. It had been published in the highest most prestigious journal, Nature, but no one had checked it before or after it was spread far and wide. Not Nature, not the IPCC, not any other climate researcher. In 1995 everyone agreed the world was warmer in medieval times, but CO2 was low then and that didn’t fit with climate models. In 1998, suddenly Michael Mann ignored the other studies and produced a graph that scared the world — tree rings show the “1990’s was the hottest decade for a thousand years”. Now temperatures exactly “fit” the rise in carbon! The IPCC used the graph all over their 2001 report. Government departments copied it. The media told everyone. But Steven McIntyre was suspicious. He wanted to verify it, yet Mann repeatedly refused to provide his data or methods — normally a basic requirement of any scientific paper. It took legal action to get the information that should have been freely available. Within days McIntyre showed that the statistics were so flawed that you could feed in random data, and still make the same hockey stick shape nine times out of ten. Mann had left out some tree rings he said he’d included. If someone did a graph like this in a stock prospectus, they would be jailed. In 2009 McIntyre did it again with Briffa’s Hockey Stick. After asking and waiting three years for the data, it took just three days to expose it too as baseless. For nine years Briffa had concealed that he only had 12 trees in the sample from 1990 onwards, and that one freakish tree virtually transformed the graph. When McIntyre graphed another 34 trees from the same region of Russia, there was no Hockey Stick. The sharp upward swing of the graph was due to one single tree in Yamal. Skeptical scientists have literally hundreds of samples. Unskeptical scientists have one tree in Yamal, and a few flawed bristlecones… It was an audacious fraud. Climate models don’t know why it was warmer 800 years ago. The models are wrong. The so-called “expert review” is meaningless. The IPCC say 2,500 experts review their reports, but those same “experts” made the baseless Hockey Stick graph their logo in 2001.
The skeptic argument: Hockey stick is broken http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm What the science says... Links to numerous recreations and source data at URL above.
There are no replies to Comment # 28. End Trace Mode for Comment # 28.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestOttmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits the group’s primary goal is the redistribution of wealth and not environmental protection or saving the Earth.
#11. To: go65 (#7)
one of the biggest pushers of false information
#13. To: no gnu taxes (#11)
Bullshit.
#16. To: go65 (#13)
And there are no weather sensors in the artic
#17. To: no gnu taxes (#16)
Weather sensors in the Arctic are few and far between, and NONE (or so few as to be inconsequential) are located in remote, inland high areas which would give true measures of the temperature outside the populated coastal UHI where the sensors are located.
#21. To: go65 (#17)
#23. To: no gnu taxes (#21)
CONCLUSIONS
#26. To: go65 (#23)
The author of the study is Craig Loehle, a forestry scientist considered an expert by the Heartland institute. He works directly for the paper industry to spin their view of climate change, and who's past efforts are chock full of mistakes.
#28. To: no gnu taxes (#26)
"In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the hockey stick and debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from 'collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects', substantially affecting the temperature index." (John McLaughlin)
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
Replies to Comment # 28.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]