Al Gore Lies About Gloabl Warming Scandal

[MrSheepish]

but, you see, we won't do any of those things. What we will do is to argue over whether what we can plainly see is real or an hallucination (melting ice caps, for example), and then fight over who needs to cut back on carbon emissions. In the unlikely event that we in the US could get our act together and create a smaller carbon footprint, China will take up the slack. Humanity has never, in all its history, ever had the degree of international cooperation a worldwide reduction in carbon emissions would require.

Agreed, I don't think it is too likely that we will achieve massive reductions in CO2 production unless dramatic new technologies are developed and go on the market soon.

Further, CO2 and methane emitted by human activities is only one of he causes of global climate change.

But it appears to be the primary cause in this case.

The Earth undergoes cycles of warmer and cooler weather, which is the argument that the headinthesanders use after their argument that climate change is not real falls apart. They then say, "well, no one argued that climate change was not real (which they did, of course) but it isn't anthropogenic."

Which is partially true. It is only being accelerated by human activities.

Why do you say "accelerated by human activities"? Do you have any reason to believe that the earth would be warming at all if it weren't for humans? I think most of the rest of what you say is a bit overly pessimistic but still basically accurate.

So, get ready. Earth's climates are going to change, some places will get warmer, others cooler, some wetter, others drier. Sea levels will rise, but probably not as much as the alarmists are expecting.

All guesses, but likely to be true.

 

[Gipper]

Mmm, hmmm. Because Russian economists with ties to the Cato institute say a minority of their temperature stations were excluded you just assume they are telling the whole story and that it was done for dishonest reasons.

Another day, another accusation of fabricating data by Asur for which he provides no supporting evidence.

Mr. Sheeple, this is just wrong. You see conspiracy on the part of the hoaxers, but not the warmers. How could you be so biased?

The warmers are the ones claiming all sorts of crap, demand we return to the stone age (but they get to keep their big houses, cars, and private jets), and have the media and academia behind them. They are motivated by power and money. Yet, you have no problem with them. But, anyone who presents data disputing the kooky warming hoax is biased.

Now admit it, you work for Al Gore.

 

[MrSheepish]

Mr. Sheeple, this is just wrong. You see conspiracy on the part of the hoaxers, but not the warmers. How could you be so biased?

What conspiracy? You guys are the ones claiming an entire profession consists of liars who have a coordinated agenda, not me. I am simply pointing out that most of the things you guys have claimed are examples of fraud are nothing of the sort. I have shown you why and explained the details to you. The only thing I am not sure of is the claims of the conservative Russian economists with ties to the Cato institute. They might be right, I don't have enough information to know, but they are neither scientists nor are they unbiased.

The warmers are the ones claiming all sorts of crap, demand we return to the stone age (but they get to keep their big houses, cars, and private jets), and have the media and academia behind them.

I have supported none of these things, nor do most climatologists.

They are motivated by power and money.

The scientists you are calling frauds are not. If they were then why did they enter such a hard and non-lucrative profession? Scientists require more years of education and generally get fewer $ per hour of work than do most economists, engineers, computer experts, doctors, and lawyers.

Yet, you have no problem with them. But, anyone who presents data disputing the kooky warming hoax is biased.

If you presented data then I must have missed it, I have only seen you present blog posts with accusations. I have shown why most of these accusations are wrong, as I have for Asur. Asur has presented some data trying to claim that the globe was cooling. I explained to him repeatedly why he was misinterpreting it.

If you guys are so sure that you're right then respond and point out my mistakes. You aren't doing so. You're just repeating the same accusations over and over.

 

[asur]

Mr Sheepish wrote -

Mmm, hmmm. Because Russian economists with ties to the Cato institute say a minority
of their temperature stations were excluded you just assume they are telling the whole story and that
it was done for dishonest reasons.

Independent scientists elsewhere have questioned
the station data also. It's common sense that if you haven't used all the sample
data and you haven't provided a valid reason as to why, you should expect questioning.
They haven't provided a valid excuse and avoided the scientists that questioned their data.
RealClimate deleted such questions on the website RealClimate.org aka FakeClimate.

Here is another famous example.

CRU’s handling of Siberian temperatures had been questioned years ago by Warwick Hughes


http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/tarko.htm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/...ow-jones-put-bias-in-australian-temperatures/

Hughes questioned why data was eliminated from the earlier years, had gaps, etc.
Had the missing data from earlier years, etc. been used, it would not have lead to
the warming conclusion that Al Gore and the other Global Warming Scammers preach.

Phil Jones responded:
We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you,
when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." —[WWW]Dr. Phil Jones, CRU,
responding to this request

He has stonewalled ever since.
Now does he sound like a sharing or scientific person?

Jone actions are one example of what the Global Warming Political Scientists are up to!
Deception, arrogance, cherry picking of data, manipiulation of data, hiding of data, lack
of cooperation and coverup.



Here is the email trail:
Dear Phillip and Chris Folland (with your IPCC hat on),



Some days ago Chris I emailed to Tom Karl and you replied re the grid
cells in north Siberia with no stations, yet carrying red circle grid
point anomalies in the TAR Fig 2.9 global maps. I even sent a gif file
map showing the grid cells barren of stations greyed out. You said this
was due to interpolation and referred me to Phillip and procedures
described in a submitted paper. In the last couple of days I have put up
a page detailing shortcomings in your TAR Fig 2.9 maps in the north
Siberian region, everything is specified there with diagrams and
numbered grid points.



[1] One issue is that two of the interpolated grid cells have larger
anomalies than the parent cells !!!!?????

This must be explained.



[2] Another serious issue is that obvious non-homogenous warming in
Olenek and Verhojansk is being interpolated through to adjoining grid
cells with no stations, like cancer.



[3] The third serious issue is that the urbanization affected trend from
the Irkutsk grid cell neare Lake Baikal, looks to be interpolated into
its western neighbour.



I am sure there are many other cases of this, 2 and 3 happening.

Best regards,

Warwick Hughes (I have sent this to CKF)



Phil to Warwick, same email:



Warwick,

I did not think I would get a chance today to look at the web page. I
see what boxes you are referring to. The interpolation procedure cannot
produce larger anomalies than neighbours (larger values in a single
month). If you have found any of these I will investigate. If you are
talking about larger trends then that is a different matter. Trends say
in Fig 2.9 for the 1976-99 period require 16 years to have data and at
least 10 months in each year. It is conceivable that at there are 24
years in this period that missing values in some boxes influence trend
calculation. I would expect this to be random across the globe.



Warwick,

Been away. Just checked my program and the interpolation shouldn’t
produce larger anomalies than the neighbouring cells. So can you send me
the cells, months and year of the two cells you’ve found ? If I have
this I can check to see what has happened and answer (1). As for (2) and
(3) we compared all stations with neighbours and these two stations did
not have problems when the work was done (around 1985/6). I am not
around much for the next 3 weeks but will be here most of this week and
will try to answer (1) if I get more details. If you have the names of
stations that you’ve compared Olenek and Verhojansk with I would
appreciate that.



Cheers

Phil



OK, so far we see the two discussing issues in a
scientific work, usual tone, no problem. But as he found more
inconsistencies, in order to understand what was going on, in 2005
Warwick asked Phil for the dataset that was used to create the CRU
temperature record. Phil Jones famously replied:



Subject: Re: WMO non respondo

… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or
so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to
you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …

Cheers Phil

 

[Sihouette]

I wonder why you bring up a squabble between two scientists while I post a picture of many availible of houses collapsing from the melting of PERMAfrost

Your example shows nothing about the earth itself while the pictures do not lie. PERMAfrost that has been around for millenia is now melting. Let me repeat that. PERMAfrost that has been around for millenia is now melting. Nobody needs to debate it. It is fact.

Here's another picture that trumps a thousand words..

 

[Gipper]

Well that picture convinced me my shadowy friend (even if misspelled). I am now a warming alarmists and demand the discontinuance of all CO2 emissions to save homes in Alaska (hell, that house in Detroit is considered nice).

Ops, that means we must become hunter gathers. Well to save the world, we must do it. Except all third world nations, China, and India get exceptions...and of course all the liberal elites.

Oh well. Tough luck for us.

 

[asur]

Sihouette - Where's the picture from?
Again, you haven't provided a link or source.

Permafrost melting has gone on for years and
one picture means almost nothing.

Try this for cherry picking without attribution:

Vostok, Antarctica (Russia) is the home of the coldest temperature on Earth at a cool -89 °C (183 K). At the Russian research station the temperature is regularly in the -30 to the -60 °C mark.


"Vostok station (Russian) NEW RECORD SET IN 1997!!! This is an unconfirmed report from Vostok Station during the winter of 1997. -91 °C (-132 °F) This is colder than Dry Ice! The "official"record is also from Vostok station on July 21, 1983 -89.2 °C (-128.6 °F)"

That's interesting if true, but that's for another class.

Vostek is also where they collect ice core samples.


I'm just showing you that we could be unscientific if we wanted.
But we will try to be scientific in this class!

We will use scientific methods to discuss climate.
We will temperature data, Climategate Email, logic, common sense, etc.

 

[top gun]

I wonder why you bring up a squabble between two scientists while I post a picture of many availible of houses collapsing from the melting of PERMAfrost

Your example shows nothing about the earth itself while the pictures do not lie. PERMAfrost that has been around for millenia is now melting. Let me repeat that. PERMAfrost that has been around for millenia is now melting. Nobody needs to debate it. It is fact.

Here's another picture that trumps a thousand words..

Good post Siho.

There is no doubt that the earth's atmosphere can be tainted by huge man made changes over time. The argument from the other side if you really look at it is this... Let's just continue to pollute and go on as we are until things get worse because doing green things cost money going in.

It's tantamount to the guy downstream saying... Let the town of 1000 people upriver from me dump all their raw sewage into the river until the town grows to 2000 people because if they have to put in a sewage plant I'll have to help pay for it. I can live with drinking the slightly sh!tty water for now.

 

[groupthink]

oh my god our permafrost is melting!!!! cant we just go to alaska and get more permafrost?

or has mt permafrost melted as well?

 

[asur]

Top Gun - You might want to attend one of the non-credit courses in our
liberal arts department, dealing with fictional literature, etc.

We have never suggested people pollute and that is irrelevant to our
current discussion! This is a class of science and higher learning.

 

[groupthink]

Top Gun - You might want to attend one of the non-credit courses in our
liberal arts department, dealing with fictional literature, etc.

We have never suggested people pollute and that is irrelevant to our
current discussion! This is a class of science and higher learning.

do you fart alot?

 

[top gun]

Top Gun - You might want to attend one of the non-credit courses in our
liberal arts department, dealing with fictional literature, etc.

We have never suggested people pollute and that is irrelevant to our
current discussion! This is a class of science and higher learning.

You are saying that pumping millions and millions of EXTRA tons of CO2 into the our limited and balanced atmosphere DAILY does not have a negative effect on that atmosphere and hence the earth.

You are incorrect sir.

You go head on and drink the sh!tty water. I'm for building the treatment plant.

 

[PLC1]

the invisable and the non-existant look very much alike

Interestingly enough, the CO2 in the atmosphere is invisible, yet we know that it exists. Even the voices claiming that the increase thereof has no effect will acknowledge that it exists, yet we don't see it.

Is there a lesson in that?

 

[groupthink]

lets ban farting.

 

[Sihouette]

Well that picture convinced me my shadowy friend (even if misspelled).~groupthink

I purposefully misspelled that name because when I tried to register as "Silhouette" with the "l", it kept bungling up. So I dropped a letter and it went through fine. I don't get hungup on spelling errors. It's like the global warming debunkers, they get hung up on one argument between scientists and miss the meteor heading right for the conference room. I'm big on substance and short on fluff.

It doesn't matter where it's from. The PERMAfrost IS melting.