Al Gore Lies About Gloabl Warming Scandal

Well this should end the debate on this hoax once and for all, but I know the warming freaks will never give up.

Now is the time to assign blame and heads should roll (a figure of speech libs). The liberal elites who claimed we needed to change our entire way of life excepting themselves, need to pay...

Try finding this on the MSM.

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fd4v7irs

The Liar...
article-1250872-0845A9BA000005DC-871_233x377.jpg
 
Werbung:
Well this should end the debate on this hoax once and for all, but I know the warming freaks will never give up.

It's a distortion of the truth. Let's compare what your source claims with what he actually said.

Your claim:
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

What he said:
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

So the warming is not quite 95% statistically established for this particular period, even though it is much better established if you use more time in your data. This is very much in support of the global warming hypothesis.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

What he actually said:
G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D.

I - Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?

No - see again my answer to D.

Again, technically true, but a complete distortion of the point he was making. This is completely consistent with what the scientists have been saying all along.

No matter how many times the skeptics get caught trying to spread misinformation about this sort of thing, they keep coming back for more, and they have no shame about confusing the public. Oh well, not much I can do about it other than trying to set the record straight every now and then.
 
It's a distortion of the truth. Let's compare what your source claims with what he No matter how many times the skeptics get caught trying to spread misinformation about this sort of thing, they keep coming back for more, and they have no shame about confusing the public. Oh well, not much I can do about it other than trying to set the record straight every now and then.

How does one continue to claim global warming is occurring when so much evidence is available proving this is a hoax promoted by unethical elitists, liars, and fools out to enrich themselves? It must be human nature to believe what you want to believe and ignore the truth. This must be how murdering dictators like Lenin, Castro, Hitler, and others get to power.

ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html
 
How does one continue to claim global warming is occurring when so much evidence is available proving this is a hoax promoted by unethical elitists, liars, and fools out to enrich themselves?

Because most of these things are lies, distortions, or half truths. I have already explained many of them in this thread. Are there climate scientists who are unethical? Yes, there are some, and you will uncover some evidence of this when you steal 15 years worth of their e-mails. Have mistakes been made? Yes, no one is perfect, but I have not seen any evidence of major mistakes. Are there climate scientists who want to see evidence of climate change found? Yes, I'm sure there are. That's probably part of why some of them went into the field.

Have these things convinced me that the science behind global warming is a hoax? Absolutely not. A handful of mistakes and examples of minor academic dishonesty do not undermine all the evidence that is out there. And any of the *real* examples of academic dishonesty you can find out there absolutely pale in comparison to the falsehoods that many skeptics have been posting on this thread. If you guys care about honestly and truth and want to have an adult discussion about this, then try cleaning up your act. I am sick of researching these accusations only to find out that most of them are blatantly false.
 
Because most of these things are lies, distortions, or half truths. I have already explained many of them in this thread. Are there climate scientists who are unethical? Yes, there are some, and you will uncover some evidence of this when you steal 15 years worth of their e-mails. Have mistakes been made? Yes, no one is perfect, but I have not seen any evidence of major mistakes. Are there climate scientists who want to see evidence of climate change found? Yes, I'm sure there are. That's probably part of why some of them went into the field.

Have these things convinced me that the science behind global warming is a hoax? Absolutely not. A handful of mistakes and examples of minor academic dishonesty do not undermine all the evidence that is out there. And any of the *real* examples of academic dishonesty you can find out there absolutely pale in comparison to the falsehoods that many skeptics have been posting on this thread. If you guys care about honestly and truth and want to have an adult discussion about this, then try cleaning up your act. I am sick of researching these accusations only to find out that most of them are blatantly false.


As Rush said last week, the warmers have lived for years believing this garbage and now they can't accept the fact that it is all a hoax.

Many gave money to the hoax. Many bought small cars because of the hoax. Many lived a life style predicated on the hoax.

And now, they just refuse to accept it was all a hoax and make up elaborate reasons why it is not a hoax.

Very sad...
 
As Rush said last week, the warmers have lived for years believing this garbage and now they can't accept the fact that it is all a hoax.

Many gave money to the hoax. Many bought small cars because of the hoax. Many lived a life style predicated on the hoax.

And now, they just refuse to accept it was all a hoax and make up elaborate reasons why it is not a hoax.

Very sad...

Do you mean to say the Dr. Elrushbo Limpbaugh, PhD in climatology, has actually come out to say that global climate change isn't real?

How does he address the melting glaciers in the time lapse photographs I posted earlier?
 
Gipper knows best, he's an expert in everything. And although the consequences of climate change are potentially catastrophic he has been so brainwashed by the industrialist lobby (the polluters for profit guys) that he jumps on anything that may indicate a slight opposition to the received wisdom and then starts stating it triumphantly as fact.

Good job he has no influence in these matters.
 
Do you mean to say the Dr. Elrushbo Limpbaugh, PhD in climatology, has actually come out to say that global climate change isn't real?

How does he address the melting glaciers in the time lapse photographs I posted earlier?

So, only PhD in Climatology can comment on the hoax. Is that your point?

Glaciers have expanded and shrunk FOREVER. So logic would dictate that your photos mean absolutely NOTHING.

Get over it WARMERS...the gig is UP....the LIE exposed...now crawl back into your rodent holes....
 
So, only PhD in Climatology can comment on the hoax. Is that your point?

Glaciers have expanded and shrunk FOREVER. So logic would dictate that your photos mean absolutely NOTHING.

Get over it WARMERS...the gig is UP....the LIE exposed...now crawl back into your rodent holes....

Oh, no, a radio pundit is totally qualified to refute scientists of NOAA, NASA, and their counterparts around the world. Anyone who wants to believe badly enough will believe their favorite pundit over those silly nerds and their PhDs. What do they know about the real world, after all?

If you really believe, click your heels together, and it is so!
 
So Al Gore MAY be wrong about global warming

But he may be right and if he is and we don't act there will be global meltdown.

But look at the lies Bush told.

Sorry, it would easier to look at the truths
 
NEWS FLASH...

Its now official....

All scientists agree that man cause global warming is nothing more then a Marxist plot to control the world. It was all a HOAX....

Anyone who disagrees is a flat earther, holocaust denier, and a 9/11 truther.

Am I not convincing?

I guess I need to work on my Saul Alinsky tactics.
 
European news agencies are dumping all over the global warming hoax. Media outlets here in America are not reporting on any of this.

This from the UK Telegraph...

Barack Obama's climate change policy in crisis
President Barack Obama's climate change policy is in crisis amid a barrage of US lawsuits challenging goverment directives and the defection of major corporate backers for his ambitious green programmes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...k-Obamas-climate-change-policy-in-crisis.html
 
Werbung:
Oh, no, a radio pundit is totally qualified to refute scientists of NOAA, NASA, and their counterparts around the world. Anyone who wants to believe badly enough will believe their favorite pundit over those silly nerds and their PhDs. What do they know about the real world, after all?

If you really believe, click your heels together, and it is so!

Well, I am a meteorologist, and I will say that some of the actions by many of these scientists fall well short of what should be considered good science. Be skeptical.

Dr. Stephen Schneider, now at Stanford University stated in 1989 in Discover magazine:

On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts.

On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
 
Back
Top