And they still tell us to expect massive amounts of warming in the future.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Let Them Burn Wood
- “New computer modeling”
- Climate Destroying Shrimp
- What’s At Stake?
- Too Hot To Live
- What’s At Stake?
- “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- “Climate change is a myth”
- Racist Gas
- RFK Jr. Discusses The Green New Deal And Climate
- “world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns”
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
- Trained Not To Learn
- Protecting Endangered Species
- Record Climate Cynicism
- Record Cynicism
- The Latest In Climate Science Rhetoric
- Climate Desperation
- Artificial Stupidity
- Climate Obsession
Recent Comments
- Joe on “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- Conrad Ziefle on Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Ivan G Wainwright on Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Conrad Ziefle on “Climate change is a myth”
- Mike on Too Hot To Live
- Mike on Climate Destroying Shrimp
- Mike on Climate Destroying Shrimp
- Mike on “New computer modeling”
- John on “Climate change is a myth”
- John B on Australia Permanent Drought Update
And how is this NOT a massive conspiracy if they have to cheat so obviously?
GISS shows 0.3 C warming since La Nina hit. Complete bullshit.
A collection of temperature-fabrication charts.
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-fake-temperatures.html
You ass. You keep bring up this massive conspiracy thing. You have no imagination.
BTW, Merry Christmas.
So scientists like this don’t know what they are talking about?
“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today,” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed…Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring”
This is precisely why we have the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). It is time to persuade a state (any state) District Attorney to file a complaint against AGW conspirators. I would start with the Union of Concerned (Corrupt) Scientists.
But you also have to include every major scientific organization, since the scientists involved in those bodies have been protecting ACC for more than 10 years.
No, not every “major scientific organization”.
I think you meant government agencies, didn’t you, not organizations? You must have. because it’s the government ones that say what you are talking about.
Did you know that? Did you think about that difference Tony Duncan?
the scientists involved in those bodies have been protecting ACC for more than 10 years.
Huh, no kidding? There’s never been any petitioning of the Royal Society, or American Physical Society?
Ok. Got ya. Those things never happened.
the scientists involved in those bodies have been protecting ACC for more than 10 years.
You make a blanket statement about all of the members of government sponsored science agencies. That blanket statement is not true. What you have said is a generalization that reveals your bias.
Tony Duncan says:
December 24, 2010 at 6:44 pm
But you also have to include every major scientific organization,
No, you did that.
Amino,
please show me the major scientific organizations that have pronounced ACC to be a fraud.
If there have been petitions to organizations and they have NOT been followed through that reinforces that this is a conscious fraud and a conspiracy. Something Steve is unwilling to state.
Is that really fair? You require the organization to pronounce ACC to be a fraud? What if they just haven’t commented either way?
Sounds like you’re wanting to assume guilty until proven innocent. Don’t know where you’re from, but in the U.S., I believe that things don’t work like that. Thus, I would say that any scientific organization that hasn’t made an official statement supporting global warming should be considered not guilty. Finding those should be easy. For instance, I doubt that the Electrochemical Society has made such a claim. Any proof otherwise?
-Scott
Scott,
Of course one can’t accuse organizations that have not stated any policy on the issue as being part of the fraud/conspiracy. I never suggested anything like that.
I was just asking Amino to name ONE that has looked at the science and is willing to proclaim fraud
Scott,
but because the science is so obvious according to many on this site, any scientific body that has NOT come out against ACC must be an accessory, since the scientists involved must be able to see the truth. Or at best wimps, scared of those bullies that are suppressing any dissent
Hmm, maybe you’re right…don’t really know for sure b/c my views are somewhere in the middle ground…I think some of the CAGW claims are so farfetched and obviously wrong. Yet I question some other claims that aren’t as obvious either way. Others still I believe are true, even if I haven’t run the numbers myself.
However, from my experience working in academia in both areas related to AGW and areas unrelated to it, I believe that the vast majority of people really don’t have any clue about the science going on, regardless of the side of the debate they’re on. Basically, the problem is massive ignorance.
I know many scientists in atmospheric science that preach CAGW almost everyday that probably couldn’t answer very straightforward questions such as “How much does HADCRUT say the Earth has warmed in the last 10 years…last 30 years?”, “What was the minimum extent of the Arctic Sea Ice in 2007?”, or “What wavelengths are most important for CO2’s absorption of outgoing radiation?” Or even “To two sig figs, what’s the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?” I could easily go on with more questions, even regarding stuff in their precious IPCC AR4. Now, should all these people know the answers to all questions like this off of the top of their heads? Probably not, although I think they should be able to answer most of them accurately and give reasonable estimates to the others, at least if they’re going to preach CAGW so much. And remember, these are Ph.D. scientists in a related area of study!
The majority of skeptics are no better, and many are even worse. I’ve only been reading up on the debate for about a year now, and I’ve had an extremely busy year, so it’s been on and off and the same amount of reading up could be done in a few weeks by someone who is single and has reasonable spare time. Yet, somehow I know a lot more of the topics of debate and subject material than these people that have been crusading for years? It makes me wonder how unbiased the material is that these people do read. And no, I’m not talking about people like Hansen or Mann, I’m talking about graduate students/postdocs/young professors in related areas. They go on the assumption of CAGW for their research and anyone who doesn’t share that assumption is a denier or worse.
Back to the original point, there are many skeptical scientists out there, but the fact is very few have looked into the numbers in any real detail simply because its out of people’s areas. Thus, scientific organizations outside of the area (for example, the Electrochemical Society) simply don’t care and are ignorant.
Just my (slightly off topic) view.
-Scott
They will have to cheat very hard to deny this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2010
See how different the purple line is? That’s the faked data from GISS. See how different it is than the other three?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/trend/offset:0.19/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2010/trend/offset:0.135/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2010/trend/offset:0.02/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2010/trend/offset
Skyrocketing heat overt here in James Hansen’s office. The rest of the world is cooling—and fricking freezing.
There must be a flooded Manhatten painted on the inside of James Hansen’s window so his prophecy can be proven true—in his little world. But, when he walks outside he’s in knee deep snow. Oppsy daisy! His prediction didn’t work out.
Again such obvious fraud is going to bring the whole ACC thing down with a bang.
More of that refreshing variety your bring here.
You are unable to understand graphs Tony Duncan.
That’s ok. Who needs to understand math to know what global warming is all about! You just have to be a clone. No thinking needed, or wanted.
Ok, so now that I’ve replied to you bring up one of the few things you say all the time. Great scintillating, intellectual fun for all to read them!
Again such obvious fraud
Sad that you can’t see it. “Let the blind lead the blind”.
Tony
This corruption is so well entrenched in political circles as well as scientific that frauds like Hansen simply don’t care whether they get found out or not as he will still be able to carry on.
Of course it might just be incompetence and not fraud.
Which do you think?
PS
This might give you a clue –
“I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke.
I repeat myself because of the obvious logical conclusion to everything posted here. This is a massive fraud that is so simple even someone with my limited scientific knowledge can see, so every scientist that has looked at the information honestly and still believes in ACC must be supporting a conspiracy.
Paul H
Paul,
we may be laboring under the illusion that everyone who finds out about ClimateGate will see it for what it really is, a revelation of corruption among global warming scientists.
I skipped over that pile of garbage that GIStemp is.
New Zealand Climate Scientists Admit To Faking Temperatures: The Actual Temps Show Little Warming Over Last 50 Years
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/12/new-zealand-climate-scientists-admit-to-faking-temperatures-the-actual-temps-show-little-warming-ove.html
I wonder why this story isn’t getting attention. Tony Duncan won’t like learning the data showing warming was wrong.
Do you really think the lamestream media is going to widely report this? ROTFLMAO 🙂
Ahhh, come on, they don’t have a bias.
;O)
Amino.
this just shows the conspiracy is unraveling. All the fraud is going to start coming apart now and real honest scientists will gain control of the peer review process again.
I am only interested in what the actual science says, and if it says ACC is wrong, then that should be established scientifically in scientific journal so that all scientists can see the truth.
I have never said anything else.
“I am only interested in what the actual science says” says Tony.
Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein, is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.
Tony Duncan says:
December 24, 2010 at 6:43 pm
I am only interested in what the actual science says
I have trouble believing that. If you had been you would have been listening to people like Steven Goddard, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, etc., have been saying.
Instead you go on and on about people like James Hansen.
Amino,
you are a joy to my life. It makes me smile when you say such ridiculous things. Why don’t you do a search and see how often I have brought up the name Hansen, compared to Lindzen and Spencer. I have READ what Spencer and Lindzen, and both Pilke’s and McIntyre, and others say. Almost the only time I have mentioned Hansen is in relation to Steve’s obsession with Manhattan being underwater or when he or Mike post one of his papers and make a claim about it that is not substantiated when i read the actual paper.
if I have EVER brought up Hansen as an authority please pot the post out to me
Why are you obsessed with covering up Hansen’s predictions?
As soon as Hansen makes a public prediction that says research shows sea levels will rise by 5 meters by the end of 2099, I will proclaim it to be alarmist.
Tony Duncan says:
December 24, 2010 at 8:57 pm
As soon as Hansen makes a public prediction that says research shows sea levels will rise by 5 meters by the end of 2099, I will proclaim it to be alarmist.
You have a selective way of looking at things.
Tony Duncan says:
December 24, 2010 at 8:31 pm
you are a joy to my life.
Great. Then you must have quit believing in the future-disasters-scenario of global warming and have found that nothing needs to be changed in human activity. Since the science shows there are no disasters coming there’s nothing to worry about. You can go on to other things now Tony.
Tony Duncan says:
December 24, 2010 at 8:57 pm
As soon as Hansen makes a public prediction that says research shows sea levels will rise by 5 meters by the end of 2099, I will proclaim it to be alarmist.
If James Hansen is not an alarmist then why is he saying we have to save the world from “Storms of My Grandchildren”?
http://stormsofmygrandchildren.com/
James Hansen is nothing but an alarmist. Don’t you agree?
Paul is just echoing what I wrote above. The science is clear so any scientist who supports ACC is perpetrating fraud.
Back to that same thing you always say Tony. You really need to simmer down. You have this all or nothing attitude. You use blanket statements, generalizations. You should try a little nuance.
They Have To Cheat To Make 2010 As Warm As It Was 12 Years Ago
But haven’t they always cheated?
Here’s some cheating from 22 years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhTxM2ith5k
Wow, when did the competitive Enterprise institute become the standard for deciding global temperature changes? They must BE TOTALLY attacking Steve Goddard for being a global warming alarmist because he has said in this blog that temps have risen since Hansen made his claim.
Not really relevant is it Tony?
You will have to do better in future but I’ll let you off this time as it’s Xmas.
Enjoy!!
Paul
Tony Duncan says:
December 24, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Wow, when did the competitive Enterprise institute become the standard for deciding global temperature changes?
They never said what you are claiming they said.
You comprehension needs some attention.
The more you talk Tony Duncan the more it can be seen how poorly prepared you are.
Tony Duncan says:
December 24, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Wow, when did the competitive Enterprise institute become the standard for deciding global temperature changes? They must BE TOTALLY attacking Steve Goddard for being a global warming alarmist because he has said in this blog that temps have risen since Hansen made his claim.
So did they. Watch the video again. But this time leave your bias at the door.
Tony Duncan
What’s really telling about you is that you jump to talking about the CEI. You didn’t say one thing about the political manipulations at the meeting. Most people would consider that cheating. Do you?
The man should have worded what he said better. That is true. Temperatures have gone up 100ths to 10ths of a degree. He should have said only a small fraction of what Hansen claimed.
Paul H says:
December 24, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Not really relevant is it Tony?
One shouldn’t expect relevance from him.
Tony Duncan
It’s really strange that you didn’t care about the air condition being shut off. Not a mention of it.
Amino,
the issue of the air conditioning I have responded to before.
But I understand how hard it is to keep track of everything I say that does not fit your projection of me.
Paul,
you say it is NOT relevant that CEI says temps have not risen between 1989 and 2009?
I am sorry, what blog am I on?
Amino,
I never said CEI said that. It was the person on the video. If CEI DIDN’T say temps have not risen from 1989 to 2009, then the person on the video is lying
Tony Duncan says:
December 24, 2010 at 8:19 pm
the issue of the air conditioning I have responded to before.
I didn’t see anything about it in your comment. Did you mean I am supposed to search the internet for what you said about it at some time in the past? You didn’t want to say it here?
Tony Duncan says:
December 24, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Tony Duncan says:
December 24, 2010 at 8:19 pm
everything I say that does not fit your projection of me.
I have never seen you comment on it.
It’s just odd, isn’t it, that you chose to talk about something other than the air conditioning, which is what Paul H meant. And you still won’t talk about it.
If you mean by “on the internet” Steve’s blog, then yes that is what I mean.
Since you have never asked me what I thought of that i didn’t think it necessary to answer. You after all know what I think about it, because you know I only follow the ACC propaganda line.
But I apologize, since you have always answered every point I have made about so many of these issues.
Amino,
well you might ask.
It’s Christmas Eve. I don’t want to play your game.
Tony Duncan says:
December 24, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Paul,
you say it is NOT relevant that CEI says temps have not risen between 1989 and 2009?
I am sorry, what blog am I on?
The title of this thread is
“They Have To Cheat To Make 2010 As Warm As It Was 12 Years Ago”
The issue of the air conditioning being turned off is what was germane in that video to this thread. You talked about something other than that. The thing you brought up was not germane to the topic of this thread. It is that simple.
There are commenters who continually go off topic. It would be nice is the topic stayed relatively on track.
Amino,
you are mistaken if you think that the air-conditioning has anything to do with cheating regarding ACC.
If at the hearing someone had presented evidence that was not backed by peer reviewed science that would be cheating. Reading Hansen’s testimony it all seemed to be based on peer reviewed science.
As of yet I have not read of any retraction of Hansen’s papers that were the basis for his congressional testimony.
the issue of the air conditioning is part of the time honored American tradition of marketing. I do not approve of it at all, as it is an appeal to emotion unrelated to the actual scientific and policy issue to be decided. Obviously the theatrics did not work very well, and now is being used by opponents of ACC as proof of cheating.
Tony:
If the air conditioning stunt while requesting research funding had not worked we would not be discussing it today related to all the other Drama Queen Antics of James Hansen.
The original work that speech was based on was just reinterpreted to claim he was correct in his bad projections.
Even when proven wrong and falsified no climatology work is retracted but that is also common practice in many fields of research
LOL,
not once have you posted anything rational in the comment thread.
I had the gall to post real numbers and you foam at the mouth over it.But not counterpoint came.
Since you have nothing to counter with rationally.
Why are you still here?
Tony Duncan,
Merry Christmas!
🙂
Mike
Wow, other fields of science allow work that is proven to be fraudulent that impacts every aspect of the entire field of research to remain unchallenged?
Anyway. I am signing off
Merry Christmas.
i hope all have a good day with family and loved ones.
Steve I have trouble finding your links. Where is the link to this headline? In fact, where are the links to most of your headlines? Is my browser up the chit?
I think this is relevant:
We’ll have a record number of people celebrating a “White Christmas” this year, the hottest on record according to James Hanson & Co.
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/DATA/prvsnow.gif
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_asiaeurope.gif?session-id=05e4790d63175d4111bff4b15e7adc2f
Merry Christmas
They will be cheating until it is politically profitable. Anyway, they will find out a solution just because they can’t afford to lose the grands.
Marry Xmas to all
Merry Christmas to you!