Climategate Professor Admits: No Global Warming For 15 Years

[UNTflyer]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

[FirefightnRick]

Good read Flyer. Here's another.

Sea-level records challenged

The rhythm of ice

Dorale says that the timing of the sea level changes raises questions about what kind of climate change could have caused it. Observations so far suggest that ice-sheet growth and decay in the past few million years happens on average to a 100,000-year beat. Temperatures and greenhouse-gas levels, measured from ice cores, also follow this long-term rhythm.

These cycles have been linked to the Milankovitch theory, which calculates how small changes in Earth's orbit and axial tilt bring about a regular succession of cold and warm periods because they alter the intensity of sunlight reaching the Northern Hemisphere in summer.3 Calculated sunlight variation comes in three rhythms — of 23,000; 41,000 and 100,000 years. Although the 100,000-year periodicity is weak, it seems to have dominated the most recent cycles, and has been used to explain observed sea-level and ice-sheet fluctuations.

Edited February 15, 2010 by FirefightnRick

[EagleMBA]

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

Here is another great explanation of the Global Warming myth.

[UNTflyer]

The earth's atmosphere is not a closed system. We have the heat of the earth's core, volcanic eruptions, gas emissions from nature and the oceans, heat generated from the sun, gamma rays, dark matter, and who knows what else slamming into the atmosphere that we have not even imagined....

So I find it quite arrogant and unscientific when these jerks claim "The debate is over. It's carbon dioxide." Especially when they now admit their science is flawed.

[GreenFlag]

The earth's atmosphere is not a closed system. We have the heat of the earth's core, volcanic eruptions, gas emissions from nature and the oceans, heat generated from the sun, gamma rays, dark matter, and who knows what else slamming into the atmosphere that we have not even imagined....

So I find it quite arrogant and unscientific when these jerks claim "The debate is over. It's carbon dioxide." Especially when they now admit their science is flawed.

Nice find, you really dug deep on this one. You went far beyond reputable scientific journals and linked an article from a British daily tabloid.

The whole idea of Global Warming was met with a great deal of scepticism as are ALL new ideas and theories in the scientific community. Only after a great deal of debate and research do these ideas and theories become accepted. There are flaws of course, mistakes will have been made and continue to be made, and research will be invalidated which is great. That is how the process works. At the end of the day, every national science academy that has issued a statement on the subject agree on 1) The climate has warmed in recent decades at a pace far greater than previous known global warmings and 2)That human activities have influenced this.

No known scientific society rejects these findings.

Again, nice find.

[HoustonEagle]

GreenFlag I recommend you run do not walk away from this conversation. The Heritage Foundation, Fox News and Drudge has them now. They have been assimilated into the machine. Reasoning with them only leads to tired head.

Happy Presidents Day Everyone!

[UNTFan23]

GreenFlag I recommend you run do not walk away from this conversation. The Heritage Foundation, Fox News and Drudge has them now. They have been assimilated into the machine. Reasoning with them only leads to tired head.

Happy Presidents Day Everyone!

To believe that companies will merely absorb the new taxes and fees from energy reform as a cost of doing business and not pass those costs on to their customers is foolish. Energy costs factor into everything in our economy, from the food you buy in the grocery store to feed your family to the electricity feeding into your house to post on this message board.

[UNT90]

GreenFlag I recommend you run do not walk away from this conversation. The Heritage Foundation, Fox News and Drudge has them now. They have been assimilated into the machine. Reasoning with them only leads to tired head.

Happy Presidents Day Everyone!

So, I guess that mean MSNBC, CNN, and Air America have you? See how that works both ways?

Maybe you run from the debate because you don't respect those with differing opinions from your own. There has been plenty of contradictory research posted on here that dispute your view, but you fall back on the trusty old "right wing conservative conspiracy theory"?

I see most conservatives on here respond to being challenged with information, while I see most liberals respond with name calling. Maybe it's the whole thought vs. feeling aspects of the 2 opposite ends of the spectrum.

[HoustonEagle]

So, I guess that mean MSNBC, CNN, and Air America have you? See how that works both ways?

Maybe you run from the debate because you don't respect those with differing opinions from your own. There has been plenty of contradictory research posted on here that dispute your view, but you fall back on the trusty old "right wing conservative conspiracy theory"?

I see most conservatives on here respond to being challenged with information, while I see most liberals respond with name calling. Maybe it's the whole thought vs. feeling aspects of the 2 opposite ends of the spectrum.

Yes, there is credible research out there. No, it is rarely used to support your arguments. You will find that keeping an eye on what sources you post will help with the name calling.

I don't watch msnbc or listen to Air America (are they still on?) If I am guilty of anything it is watching John Stewart. Sorry, he just cracks me up.

[FirefightnRick]

Now the UN's IPCC hurricane data is questioned.

More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

Great Article: What to say to a global warming alarmist

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 United Nation's 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....

Rick

[yyz28]

Nice find, you really dug deep on this one. You went far beyond reputable scientific journals and linked an article from a British daily tabloid.

You can't argue the information presented, so instead of going after the person who made the statements or the statements themselves, you attack the service who choose to run the story? C'mon, if you have a point to make, please make it, and try and do so without trying to discredit the story because of where it ran. ...this is just another in a long line of stories that throw all of the "evidence" that you base the rest of your post on into question, and many of those stories didn't have to be dug for.

The whole idea of Global Warming was met with a great deal of scepticism as are ALL new ideas and theories in the scientific community. Only after a great deal of debate and research do these ideas and theories become accepted.

...which hasn't happened yet. A large part of the scientific community are questioning the evidence. ...including some who once were ball carrying members of the "Global Warming" Team. Since the debate isn't over and the facts aren't all in, and as more research is done on what "facts" we do have we find more and more holes, perhaps it is time to slow down and engage in some REAL science, and do so without a pre-conceived notion of what the results should be.

There are flaws of course, mistakes will have been made and continue to be made, and research will be invalidated which is great. That is how the process works.

...more and more flaws being found daily. For example, a big story yesterday is how unreliable the temperature readings at weather stations are. Issues with calibration, no mention of the fact that many weather stations that used to be in rural areas are now surrounded by development. Weather stations that were built on the outskirts of airports that now have hot jet exhaust blown on them as the airport has expanded, weather stations that aren't in the same place they were when they started being recorded, etc.

At the end of the day, every national science academy that has issued a statement on the subject agree on 1) The climate has warmed in recent decades at a pace far greater than previous known global warmings and 2)That human activities have influenced this.

No known scientific society rejects these findings.

First of all, I'd like to see you back this up, because this simply isn't true. Second of all, any scientist who, despite the evidence that is coming out almost daily about the flaws in the data upon which many conclusions have been drawn on keep coming out, doesn't take a moment of pause to investigate the new information - isn't really a scientist at all, so a group that they belong do doesn't really draw much water with me.

Science, like justice, should always be blind, and should not be conducted with the thought "this is what answer we WANT to see" because somehow, that's the answer that will show up. These SAME Scientific Society's and Scientists were telling us 25-30 years ago the planet was cooling at an exponential rate, and that we'd be sitting on an ice cube by the mid 90's. ...they are the same people that called it global warming for the past 15 years that we needed to worry about Global Warming. ...now they've changed it to "Climate Change" because in truth they don't know what the hell is going on, so they needed to change the language to keep them from looking like a bunch of folks with Agendas instead of Scientists the next time they changed their mind.

...and to believe that MAN though the production of CARBON can change the climate on this planet is just full-on absurdity. Human activity is results in CO2 emissions, which is the big bad pollutant these folks are harping on and that we may, through technology have some way to combat. CO2 makes up 4 parts in 10,000 of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Some of this occurs naturally, and was in place LOOOOOOOOOONG before we started building factories and cars. I've used this example before, but here it is again - Lets say the atmosphere is Fouts Field. let's say that the 10,000 parts are attendees at a football game that we're losing. Let's say 2 of those people get up and walk out. Would you notice? ...well, that's the same impact that decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere by half would have on the atmosphere. ...and the idea that we have the POWER to cut CO2 in half (I don't mean CO2 emissions, I mean the actual CO2 in the atmosphere) is insanity itself.

[eeally]

Global Warming may or may not exist, however if you go to Houston, LA, W Memphis AR, Chicagoland IL, Newark NJ, Fresno CA....

What is that haze and smell. That is not Global Warming! That is Carbon in the air and it cannot be good for the citizens. So whatever News organization you are quoting please please go live there and see if you think we need to cap carbon?

[UNTLifer]

Global warming is true because Al Gore said so!!!!

Oh, and I live in Houston and the air is not that bad down here. The Metroplex may be even worse.

[Rudy]

Global Warming may or may not exist, however if you go to Houston, LA, W Memphis AR, Chicagoland IL, Newark NJ, Fresno CA....

What is that haze and smell. That is not Global Warming! That is Carbon in the air and it cannot be good for the citizens. So whatever News organization you are quoting please please go live there and see if you think we need to cap carbon?

You know, personally, I feel "global warming" is a myth. We had an actual white christmas, and had snowfall 3 weeks in a row, then last week had a legit 12 inches of snow in DALLAS. This is the coldest winter worldwide in several years. I believe the golbal temps are actually cooling. So, yeah, "golbal warming" is a myth and propaganda by some of the left. However, you right, we need to be mindful of our resoures, and pollution which can cause other problems. The two just don't have to be linked for scare tactics.

[hickoryhouse]

Global Warming may or may not exist, however if you go to Houston, LA, W Memphis AR, Chicagoland IL, Newark NJ, Fresno CA....

What is that haze and smell. That is not Global Warming! That is Carbon in the air and it cannot be good for the citizens. So whatever News organization you are quoting please please go live there and see if you think we need to cap carbon?

See this is what the debate should actually be about. Reducing the amount of pollution tat we actually live in. Reduce the amount of smog that makes the city ugly, people sick etc. That seems to be a goal that everyone can get on board with, that peple can negotiate about. IMO the people who came up with the idea that Global Warming is going to end life on earth as we know it is nothing more than a Wes Cravens type, a real life Joker from Batman, just scaring people for their own sick enjoyment or goals.

Perhaps there is a way to prove scientifically that we are warming the planet, and ad the point that that has actually happened perhaps we can find some place to agree as a city, nation or planet. But the facts are that there is no consensus, no common one anyway. These folks that are driving at this are missing their easy way out and their ticket to start pushing their personal agendas. Small bits and pieces. Who in LA will argue when they say the smog sucks, then perhaps you can get people talking and coming up with real solutions....

[Green Gas]

Global Warming may or may not exist, however if you go to Houston, LA, W Memphis AR, Chicagoland IL, Newark NJ, Fresno CA....

What is that haze and smell. That is not Global Warming! That is Carbon in the air and it cannot be good for the citizens. So whatever News organization you are quoting please please go live there and see if you think we need to cap carbon?

Surely you are joking. CO2 does not cause smog period, maybe you need to look it up before you post. Maybe you should look up ozone, just a clue. Also dust, moisture, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, tropospheric ozone, aldehydes, wind patterns, natural inversion layers, and natural emissions.

Or maybe you do not care about facts.

[GreenFlag]

You can't argue the information presented, so instead of going after the person who made the statements or the statements themselves, you attack the service who choose to run the story? C'mon, if you have a point to make, please make it, and try and do so without trying to discredit the story because of where it ran. ...this is just another in a long line of stories that throw all of the "evidence" that you base the rest of your post on into question, and many of those stories didn't have to be dug for.

I made a point AND discreditited the source. It was garbage. The long line of stories you speak of are fringe media driven, they aren't coming form the scientific community. The scientific community continues to do what they always do...conduct science, I'm all for continued scientific inquiry into the subject as it is very complex.

...which hasn't happened yet. A large part of the scientific community are questioning the evidence. ...including some who once were ball carrying members of the "Global Warming" Team. Since the debate isn't over and the facts aren't all in, and as more research is done on what "facts" we do have we find more and more holes, perhaps it is time to slow down and engage in some REAL science, and do so without a pre-conceived notion of what the results should be.

It has happened. I would be happy if a "large part" of the scientific community is questioning the evidence but that really isn't happening. Hey, many card carrying members of the "Global Warming Denial" team have come full circle. The debate IS over and even though the facts will NEVER be all in. I guess you think the overwhelming majority of the world's climatologist and institutions like NASA don't engage in real science. You know NASA, the institution that sent man to the moon. Please, please, please don't tell me you think that was a scam too.

...more and more flaws being found daily. For example, a big story yesterday is how unreliable the temperature readings at weather stations are. Issues with calibration, no mention of the fact that many weather stations that used to be in rural areas are now surrounded by development. Weather stations that were built on the outskirts of airports that now have hot jet exhaust blown on them as the airport has expanded, weather stations that aren't in the same place they were when they started being recorded, etc.

Wow, that simple huh? Jet exhaust? A "big story" yesterday? Just that, a big story. I am starting to think you think this is just some big conspiracy. Please don't forget I am all for continued scientific inquiry.

First of all, I'd like to see you back this up, because this simply isn't true. Second of all, any scientist who, despite the evidence that is coming out almost daily about the flaws in the data upon which many conclusions have been drawn on keep coming out, doesn't take a moment of pause to investigate the new information - isn't really a scientist at all, so a group that they belong do doesn't really draw much water with me.

Science, like justice, should always be blind, and should not be conducted with the thought "this is what answer we WANT to see" because somehow, that's the answer that will show up. These SAME Scientific Society's and Scientists were telling us 25-30 years ago the planet was cooling at an exponential rate, and that we'd be sitting on an ice cube by the mid 90's. ...they are the same people that called it global warming for the past 15 years that we needed to worry about Global Warming. ...now they've changed it to "Climate Change" because in truth they don't know what the hell is going on, so they needed to change the language to keep them from looking like a bunch of folks with Agendas instead of Scientists the next time they changed their mind.

...and to believe that MAN though the production of CARBON can change the climate on this planet is just full-on absurdity. Human activity is results in CO2 emissions, which is the big bad pollutant these folks are harping on and that we may, through technology have some way to combat. CO2 makes up 4 parts in 10,000 of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Some of this occurs naturally, and was in place LOOOOOOOOOONG before we started building factories and cars. I've used this example before, but here it is again - Lets say the atmosphere is Fouts Field. let's say that the 10,000 parts are attendees at a football game that we're losing. Let's say 2 of those people get up and walk out. Would you notice? ...well, that's the same impact that decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere by half would have on the atmosphere. ...and the idea that we have the POWER to cut CO2 in half (I don't mean CO2 emissions, I mean the actual CO2 in the atmosphere) is insanity itself.

If I produced evidence you wouldn't believe it so I won't bother. Why do you assume that in all of the studies that all of the scientist have conducted junk science? Why do you assume they conducted this research with a bias? Why do you think if contrarian evidence is produced that they turn a blind eye? As for me, I beleive more in the scientific community than I do you or the media. As for the Fouts Field example, hmmmm....seemed off base and overly simplistic...but I'll give it a try. If the two people that left were, let's say Todd Dodge and Gary Deloach, and they were nude, yes I would notice. That's my final answer; Global Warming is like a nude Todd Dodge and Gary Deloach that left the game while we were losing-quitters!

I'm done. You can have the last word no matter how paranoid and conspiratorial. Don't disappoint!

[UNTflyer]

The funniest thing about all this is that he manipulated the data and STILL couldn't prove with statistical certainty that temperatures have been rising for the past 15 years.

[eeally]

Surely you are joking. CO2 does not cause smog period, maybe you need to look it up before you post. Maybe you should look up ozone, just a clue. Also dust, moisture, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, tropospheric ozone, aldehydes, wind patterns, natural inversion layers, and natural emissions.

Or maybe you do not care about facts.

Surely I was joking!!! I am a freaking joker!!! Yea that's it! I did not know I was going up against such a formible foe who works for the EPA! I guess my clueless point was that for years companies got to pollute or do whatever they wanted to while cities populations lived within the conditions that were created by factories. You got me on the aldehydes, blah blah....I guess my point was that whether global warming or not; we need to put people first. The ones that live in or near the cities that emit the most....(smoke or alldyhyeds or whatever it is..) Not CO2...don't want to be clueless. But the fact is these cities stink and cannot get a good view of anything on some days. So what do you have for me after that post....Or maybe you don't care about the people...just the facts.....WEll

[UNTflyer]

Surely I was joking!!! I am a freaking joker!!! Yea that's it! I did not know I was going up against such a formible foe who works for the EPA! I guess my clueless point was that for years companies got to pollute or do whatever they wanted to while cities populations lived within the conditions that were created by factories. You got me on the aldehydes, blah blah....I guess my point was that whether global warming or not; we need to put people first. The ones that live in or near the cities that emit the most....(smoke or alldyhyeds or whatever it is..) Not CO2...don't want to be clueless. But the fact is these cities stink and cannot get a good view of anything on some days. So what do you have for me after that post....Or maybe you don't care about the people...just the facts.....WEll

Facts are important if you truly want to help people.

[KRAM1]

Pollution is one thing, and I think everyone agrees that pollution is not good and that we should all do what we can to help reduce both its cause and effect. However, sometimes, nature is against us...if one looks closely at the atmospheric conditions that exist in and around some of the most polluted cities around the globe...L.A. is a great example...Mexico City another, there is a understanding as to why some of these conditions exist to the extent that they do. No one wants pollution in the air or water or anywhere, but that "challenge" is really something different than the "global warming" issue.

Believe it or not, at one time the largest pollution problem in NYC was the HORSE and all the manure created and what to do with it. Manure was piled up everywhere like snow in big mounds....and conferences were held to try to figure out what to do with it. Want to know the "solution" that developed? The automobile. That's right, the bane of today's pollution "challenge" was once the savior for the pollution problem. As Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner point out in "Super Freaknomics", man and ingenuity figured that problem out, the same two will find a solution to the problems facing our environment today.

One does not need to fudge data to try to prove a point or to create issues or alarm people in order to get them to "buy into" one scientific position/ issue or another.

[Green Gas]

Surely I was joking!!! I am a freaking joker!!! Yea that's it! I did not know I was going up against such a formible foe who works for the EPA! I guess my clueless point was that for years companies got to pollute or do whatever they wanted to while cities populations lived within the conditions that were created by factories. You got me on the aldehydes, blah blah....I guess my point was that whether global warming or not; we need to put people first. The ones that live in or near the cities that emit the most....(smoke or alldyhyeds or whatever it is..) Not CO2...don't want to be clueless. But the fact is these cities stink and cannot get a good view of anything on some days. So what do you have for me after that post....Or maybe you don't care about the people...just the facts.....WEll

You can rant and rave all you like, but it helps to understand the problem. SMOG is not a mystery, we know what causes it. In many cases just the sheer number of people combined with natural atmospheric conditions can make SMOG minus any pollution man made. LA and Mexico City among other cities have naturally occurring SMOG and yes any pollutants listed in my other post make it worse. Sulfur emissions add the most flavor along with others. The point is CO2 is not the culprit.

[Green Gas]

Just a step further is the ways to combat SMOG, well the basic problem is over population of an area. If you remember the 70's before big manufacturing plants had to meet clean air standards it was really bad. But even if everyone in LA had electric devices and vehicles there would still be a problem from the dust kicked up, ozone from electric motors that use brushes, cooking and even the people themselves off gassing and sewage. They would have to outlaw BBQs and I think they have already made fireplace regulations. The real fix is to reduce the population in these overcrowded cities. Population limits based on the atmospheric conditions, water available, and other factors should be used in urban planing but they are just now being thought about. Water is the first one that has had any traction. LA and Mexico City need their population cut drastically, in Mexico city by as much as half. I doubt this will happen unless the volcanoes in the area force a redistribution on the population.

[Rudy]

Believe it or not, at one time the largest pollution problem in NYC was the HORSE and all the manure created and what to do with it. Manure was piled up everywhere like snow in big mounds....and conferences were held to try to figure out what to do with it.

Put it in a bunch of paper bags, place it on porches, light it, rirn the doorbell and run...problem solved. Geeze, do I have to solve all of the world's problms?