Global Warming is fake?

[velvetgoldmire]

Just piping back in to give a big 'Thank You' and 'What's up' to James. I trust his opinion on this more than anyone else in this thread.

[stormryder]

Hah on the Science doesn't "hide from the Freedom of Information Act" part. You obviously haven't been around scientists that much.

[OhNoesIt'sJohn]

Originally Posted by uberclkgtr

Yes, because there's a few scientists in the world who are dishonest and suck, the other 99.9% of scientists doing active research in multiple scientific disciplines should stop their work and go home. Let's all toss our technology in the trash and reject peer review.

Funny how these dishonest ones eventually get found out though, huh? How does that happen? Certainly not because of peer review.

....

you post brilliant stuff and then you post this drivel...

and i'm calling it drivel because the peer review process, by admission of many scientists, is, in fact, flawed because none of the data that led to the paper is reviewed, only the paper...but if you think the other 99.99% scientists(which is bs, I'd say more like 20 percent are dishonest...i mean shit, how many scientists skew data to get their grant money? lie for major corporations? etc...) are gonna throw temper tantrums over it, you're just being obtuse.

but hey, go ahead and attack everyone in this thread while you're at it. You're a climatologist, correct?

[uberclkgtr]

Originally Posted by OhNoesIt'sJohn

....

you post brilliant stuff and then you post this drivel...

and i'm calling it drivel because the peer review process, by admission of many scientists, is, in fact, flawed because none of the data that led to the paper is reviewed, only the paper...but if you think the other 99.99% scientists(which is bs, I'd say more like 20 percent are dishonest...i mean shit, how many scientists skew data to get their grant money? lie for major corporations? etc...) are gonna throw temper tantrums over it, you're just being obtuse.

peer review very often *cannot* review raw data. the assumption is that scientists are being honest. the purpose of peer review is to detect honest mistakes in a paper and to make analysis better. a peer reviewer doesn't check if the scientist has made up the data. hopefully, the grind of getting a PhD in a scientific discipline and rigor and massive amount of work required to do so, weeds out anyone who would do such a think. peer reviewers do not re-analyze raw data (or very rarely do). in the end, despite careful peer review that works most of the time, papers get published that are wrong. it's as simple as that.

luckily, wrong papers aren't reproducible, and usually that gets found out, via papers that turn out to be right. the peer review process is about more than just the peer reviewers on specific papers. it's the whole process that may span many years of research and many papers by different authors. papers often get into a dialogue. in the end, the truth emerges through repetitive testing with new data.

your view that 20% of scientists are corrupt (and therefore we shouldn't trust their science) is absurd. you have no evidence to back that up, because such evidence doesn't exist. why on earth would a scientist skew data? for grant money? please explain to me how that would work. grant allocation is done on a peer-review basis.

if any scientists are lying for corporations in this whole climate controversy, it's on the side of the fossil fuel industry bankrolling skeptics via think tank money laundering. this is well-documented and unsurprising.

[ramz]

Brr... Global Warming...

http://www.accuweather.com/news-weat...th=1&year=2010

Winter of 2009-2010 Could Be Worst in 25 Years
Posted 2010-01-04
Nearly the entire eastern half of the United States is enduring bitterly cold temperatures not experienced since 1985. Even Florida, which has been hovering around freezing le

By Jon Auciello
AccuWeather.com
Nearly the entire eastern half of the United States is enduring bitterly cold temperatures not experienced since 1985. Even Florida, which has been hovering around freezing levels overnight recently, is also feeling the almost-nationwide chill.

"It'll be like the great winters of the '60s and '70s," said AccuWeather.com Chief Meteorologist and Expert Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi.

The last time a large swath of severely low temperatures struck the nation was in January 1985. That historic arctic outbreak had below-zero temperatures Fahrenheit stretching from Chicago eastward to New York City, and all the way south to Macon, Ga.

While Bastardi says the upcoming days will bring cold not seen since 1985 or 1982, he believes this winter is shaping up much that of like 1977-78. That winter, nearly all of the United States east of the Rockies had a cold October followed by a warm November, with the cold returning in December.

What is most interesting in this case is what followed, where the months from January through March can all be classified as very cold, relative to normal.

"If it stays this cold for this long, will the groundhog even want to come out on Feb. 2?" wonders Senior Vice President and Chief Meteorologist Elliot Abrams.

This winter has already been rough for many areas of the country, with several blizzards dumping high accumulations of snow upon the Plains, mid-Atlantic and New England.

The cold air currently streaming across the Upper Midwest into the East and South will only compound the winter problems of the nation, especially since these depths have not been experienced across such a wide area simultaneously in decades.

Orr, Minn., had the coldest temperature in the United States on Monday, hitting 40 degrees below zero. Other places recorded new record low maximums, such as Bluefield, W.Va., where the temperature never exceeded 17 degrees.

Over the past 20-plus years, when below-normal cold periods have arrived in the winter they tend to have been limited to one region, according to Bastardi.

Temperatures have not been this low since the winter of 2002-03, which is known as the benchmark for frigid conditions in the last decade. However, that year the cold was not as widespread as what is happening now.

With the entire eastern half of the country in the throes of this arctic snap, this is shaping up to be the coldest winter in many people's memories.

[bboyneko]

A Complete List Of Things Supposedly

Caused By Global Warming

 

bboyneko

View Public Profile

Visit bboyneko's homepage!

Find More Posts by bboyneko

[delivery]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-emails.html

BBC thinks they have have been a bit biased covering climate change. You think?

[Cutter]

Great line:

Originally Posted by dailymail

The Corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that "the science is settled", when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn't.

[Agent Sunshine]

This thread displays the remarkable disconnect in understanding between people who are familiar with science practice and those who are not. I am not faulting the people who don't understand it, as I think scientists should do a better job of explaining the process. People do, of course, need to be willing to listen.

In general, the goal of published work is to present findings that are correct and verifiable. In practice, nearly every published work has some sort of error in it, and it is not uncommon to find works that are wholly incorrect in their findings. Moreover, it is not unheard of for a person or group to get multiple papers out of a topic by first publishing something incorrect, and then publishing proof that they were incorrect.

I don't have any standing to comment on whether the peer review process is overall flawed or not, but I can definitely say that it is by no means foolproof, nor is it expected to be. The idea is that by publishing ones results, they can be checked by other scientists. I took a number of classes as an undergrad where all we did was present published work to the class and point out what was wrong with it.

Anyway, the idea that a bunch of lay people can have a meaningful debate about the legitimacy of a body of scientific evidence in general is farcical. People think that because they know the weather report that they understand climate science. I'd love to see this kind of debate on the subject of quantum computing or dark matter or what-have-you.

[Cutter]

We have those debates too. You know what you sound like Agent Sunshine? You sound like the church. People should trust what the church is telling them to do with their lives/society because they couldn't possibly understand for themselves.

[OhNoesIt'sJohn]

Originally Posted by Agent Sunshine

Anyway, the idea that a bunch of lay people can have a meaningful debate about the legitimacy of a body of scientific evidence in general is farcical. People think that because they know the weather report that they understand climate science. I'd love to see this kind of debate on the subject of quantum computing or dark matter or what-have-you.

There are two types of people using the information as a way to bolster their position against global warming...the trolls and the right leaning hypocrites. Neither of which is going to properly debate anything...they are going to pick and choose what they want to see, paraphrase, misquote and generally shit all over something, as they normally do.

Just fuck with them. It's far more fun...the fact that people want to even debate making the world a better place should tell you it's a pointless debate.

[PotBelly]

Originally Posted by OhNoesIt'sJohn

Just fuck with them. It's far more fun...the fact that people want to even debate making the world a better place should tell you it's a pointless debate.

You're very naive if you think cap and trade is intended to make the world a better place. It's all about money.

[ramz]

like most environmental issues/"solutions", they're really about class warfare and redistribution of wealth than anything else.

[bboyneko]

1) global temperatures have not gone up in the past decade. Global warming has effectively stopped. All the things the climate models predicted for this past decade were totally and utterly wrong.

2) CO2 emissions have skyrocketed during this past decade, yet temperatures remained stable.

3) Scientists at the prestigious Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have been caught manipulating raw data to make it appear that temperatures have gone up much more than they actually have. They have blacklisted scientists that disagree with them, and strong armed peer reviewed journals that publish anyone that disagrees with them. They refused to release the raw data their reports were based on, and now officialy have "lost" the data.

The CRU data was the basis not only for IPCC reports on global warming but fgor US policies on global warming as well. This is a huge scandal.


4)It is reasonable to conclude that perhaps Co2 is not the harbginger of doom we hypothesized it was. After all, water vapor makes up the vast majority of greenhouse gases, not c02.

[john c]

face-fucking-falm.

1. Yes the CRU data was used for IPCC. But it wasnt the SOLE data, it was a mere fraction. You are talking thousands and thousands of data sets all pointing to the same conclusion. Only the CRU data has been found to be manipulated. Stop equating that one scenario with the demise with all other scientific findings.

2. you are not a climatologist by any stretch. all your points are random babble. you have no clue what you are talking about. neither does Ramz or anybody else. You guys are fucking using google to find shit online and pretend like you have any idea what the data means and what scientists actually believe.

Newsflash: real scientists who make a living off this know MORE than you. Until you prove ALL of them are lying, your points are all meaningless.