Global warming sham, "evidence" manipulated

Looks like the ones believing there is a change really out weigh the ones who don't believe there is a change. Thanks for the info.

This is not about Goddard's credentials. That is a straw man argument. He is a blogger who is quoting people with credentials. Like Al Gore pretends he is a climatologist. Goddard doesn't make that claim which gives him more credibility than Gore.

However Goddard has been right when he said that warmist treat "climate sceptics" like Jews in 1930s Germany. Many warmists have publicly stated that deniers should be "reeducated" or "put in camps". How does if feel to be on the side of the new Nazis Timmie?

You should go read Patrick Moore. He was a member of Greenpeace and he is a climatologist. He has strong doubts about when the public has been fed.

Do you like that taste Timmie?
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Where do you even find photos like that admiral? Is that out of your personal collection? Puke.

Here are a few scientists who don't believe in global warming:

Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of SciencesNils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry

Here are a few more who believe that global warming is natural;

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
George H. Taylor, former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa

Of course there are some who don't know if or what causes global warming;

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes
Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.


If you look them up they are some pretty big names here. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The vast majority of climatologists disagree you fucking pinhead.....get it? You can post up a list of 20 or 25 who line up with you.....but the vast majority of people who make their living studying weather and climate disagree with you. It doesn't matter what you post or what your silly opinion on the issue happens to be....facts are facts.

Last month was the hottest on earth since they started keeping records:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...for-Earth.html

NASA says 97% of climatologists agree: Global warming is real and fossil fuel emissions are the cause:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Even conservative republicans (at least those not trying to get votes from the mouthbreathers like you) agree: global warming is real and it is going to cost us billions of dollars:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-billions.html

The scientific evidence is overwhelming. The number of experts who agree is overwhelming.

Looks like the ones believing there is a change really out weigh the ones who don't believe there is a change. Thanks for the info. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

The argument has never been about if the climate is changing. It is about how much if any effect man has on the that change.

I guess you believe that if the majority of people believe something then it must be true. At one time everyone believed that the world was flat. How did that turn out?

There's no evidence?

Phony data, phony science. All designed to give governments more control.

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ming-data.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
Global warming sham, "evidence" manipulated

What if I changed the verbiage a bit?



Quote:
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
Iraq War sham, "evidence" manipulated


Would you bee so keen to post nonstop about it?

The argument has never been about if terrorist were responsible for 9/11 . It is about if Saddam was behind it .

I guess you believe that if the majority of people believe something then it must be true. At one time everyone believed that Saddam was behind 9/11. How did that turn out? Originally Posted by Budman

FIFY...Hey Bud....seems you did not question a 4 Trillion dollar war nearly as closely. Why is that?

There's no evidence? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Evidence of what?

There is evidence that data has been changed or manipulated but I guess that doesn't matter because the majority of climatologist believe that the man is the primary cause of climate change. Back in the 70's the scare was the coming ice age and then it was global warming. Now it is just climate change so no matter what happens it can be blamed on man made causes and we can be taxed for it. This is a money grab and always has been.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
Global warming sham, "evidence" manipulated

What if I changed the verbiage a bit?



Quote:
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
Iraq War sham, "evidence" manipulated


Would you bee so keen to post nonstop about it?

FIFY...Hey Bud....seems you did not question a 4 Trillion dollar war nearly as closely. Why is that? Originally Posted by WTF

And you know this how? Because you have the ability to take a quote from me and change it to suit your position.

The argument has never been about if the climate is changing. It is about how much if any effect man has on the that change.

I guess you believe that if the majority of people believe something then it must be true. At one time everyone believed that the world was flat. How did that turn out? Originally Posted by Budman

Did you see where I blamed it on man? Weren't you fucktards that were the ground swell of the flat earth society?

The vast majority of climatologists disagree you fucking pinhead.....get it? You can post up a list of 20 or 25 who line up with you.....but the vast majority of people who make their living studying weather and climate disagree with you. It doesn't matter what you post or what your silly opinion on the issue happens to be....facts are facts.

Last month was the hottest on earth since they started keeping records:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...for-Earth.html

NASA says 97% of climatologists agree: Global warming is real and fossil fuel emissions are the cause:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Even conservative republicans (at least those not trying to get votes from the mouthbreathers like you) agree: global warming is real and it is going to cost us billions of dollars:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-billions.html

The scientific evidence is overwhelming. The number of experts who agree is overwhelming. Originally Posted by timpage

Did you ever get rid of all your Y2K supplies and that cabin in the Rockies? The consensus (which is not very scientific) was that Y2K was real and was going to happen. So do you happen to remember what really happened? Pretty much next to nothing. Pulling up old stories before the new information came to light is not the way to influence someone's opinion. We could just go back to that Malayisan airliner in the first week of the story and compare to the stories being written after the first two months. By the way, did you see the story where the pilot was practicing landing on unimproved runways on his simulator?

Why we could go back to the democratic convention and read about how Al Quaeda in finished and on the the run. Sure reads different now.

Did you see where I blamed it on man? Weren't you fucktards that were the ground swell of the flat earth society? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Please. You can't be that clueless. The left's position, which you are clearly a part off, is that climate change is mostly caused by man and we must do something about. If you believe that climate change is just a natural part of this world we live in and it is not something that man can control then say so.

Please. You can't be that clueless. The left's position, which you are clearly a part off, is that climate change is mostly caused by man and we must do something about. If you believe that climate change is just a natural part of this world we live in and it is not something that man can control then say so. Originally Posted by Budman

The biggest trouble with you wingers is you are so eager to bash someone you don't pay attention.

1 I am not the left.
2 Don't put words in my mouth.
3 Try to keep up.

The biggest trouble with you wingers is you are so eager to bash someone you don't pay attention.

1 I am not the left.
2 Don't put words in my mouth.
3 Try to keep up. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You're not a liberal? Bullshit. You know what I find funny about libs is how they are ashamed of being a liberal. You asked any conservative if they are liberal or conservative and they proudly claim they are conservative. Liberals very seldom say that they are liberals. If you are a lib say so and own it. Don't deny it when you support damn near every aspect of the liberal agenda.

You're not a liberal? Bullshit. You know what I find funny about libs is how they are ashamed of being a liberal. You asked any conservative if they are liberal or conservative and they proudly claim they are conservative. Liberals very seldom say that they are liberals. If you are a lib say so and own it. Don't deny it when you support damn near every aspect of the liberal agenda. Originally Posted by Budman

Thanks for proving my point, now go sit on the porch. Idiots like you proudly claim they are idiots.