and they didn't predict a 'few years' of cold in the 1970's (80 years before your moronic counterpoint) but an f'n ice age!!!!!

Oh yea Carter was President and started the EPA to rid us from foreign oil dependancy as I recall. Deep understanding you call it. :eek:

except for the years when it gets cooler

No, Dell, all of "science" didn't juggle and lose or destroy evidence. A couple guys at one place averaged temps to show NZ temps increasing when they stayed the same.

Nope. I never discussed Carter, the EPA, and foreign oil in relation to "deep understanding". That you keep bringing up all your little Carter hates is hilarious. I didn't vote for the guy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

apparently the issues with the data and "science" run a bit deeper than ARiot trys to portray. Like some of the peers who review the peer reviewed studies are the same phonies who fudged the data. Among other things...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...250205490.html

Another dirty little truth

How inconvenient.

you guys did see that all the raw data that had been compiled had been destroyed? there's no way to go back and double-check the figures this group had been using-they erased all the figures.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece


SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.



The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible

wrong as usual AGAIN!

Does Carter have a new book coming out?

Saw one titled simply 'For Dummies' and thought it was his.

Not really. I'm talking about the same thing you are, and it involves the same men.

Wow. Before you throw stones, you really need to get a clue. Maybe try and understand what we are talking about?

I hope you guys realize that this is talking about a limited amount of data, not "all scientific data ever" on climate change?

i guess the fact that most researchers got their data from this group means nothing to you?
i mean, i know i didn't learn enough in science class, but i did learn comprehension skills in english class, so i did pick up on that in the articles.

Of course it means something, this was the assembly clearinghouse, but there is still alot of data they have, and that others have. It's not "all in the toilet" - gone.

You guys also have to realize that what is quoted was written by newsmen writing opinion about science they do not believe in or support. Look at some other sources. Try to find comment from within the scientific world.

do you mean like scientists who have come out and shown they don't necessarily believe in this science? that they have other, dissimilar info that these scientists then attacked? that they don't agree, that not all scientists back the u.n. findings that were supported with tricks? these same guys who destroyed data, deleted FOI requested info that is illegal to get rid of once there has been an FOI request? why do i need a scientist to tell me that these guys have some shady dealings to explain? much of the original data is GONE, destroyed by these folks. gone forever, with no way of ever going back and redoing what they did. in other words, no split sample.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...vKtgAD9CAOU800



The chief of a prestigious British research center caught in a storm of controversy over claims that he and others suppressed data about climate change has stepped down pending an investigation, the University of East Anglia said Tuesday.

Yes there are scientists that "don't believe" in climate change (although science isn't a belief system, and there are scientists who don't believe the earth is older than 10,000 years, either). Over the past 20-30 years, their number have dwindled as more information was obtained. They are clearly a minority opinion.

The guys are undeniably shady. I hope their Universities investigate them. The question is how relative is this to the validity of the rest of the body of knowledge in this field. It's a pretty huge field. Hundreds of scientists across the world, many countries. A right-wing blogger isn't who I would listen to regarding this.

The "original data is GONE" - from these guys, yes some data. Not all the original data about everything about climate change that's ever been done.

We will have to hope that Fox News and the Telegraph are the Woodward and Berstein of Climategate.

i don't watch/read fox news. they're far too slanted for me. and when i said 'don't believe in' those were my words, not theirs. no doubt they have data to back up their assertions and findings, much like the others had data to back up their assertions. of course, we may never know what all they had since so much is now gone, and no way to retrace it. guess we all have to just take it on faith. lol

Don't like FOX? Try this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...eneration.html

You said and again I quote, "A couple guys at one place averaged temps to show NZ temps increasing when they stayed the same."

Now we know it was more than a couple guys and one place. Face it you were wrong as usual. And how in the hell do you know how much data was destroyed?

:tro: :tro:

the biggest question i have at this point? if this is such an airtight case, they KNOW what they have found to be true....then why the skulduggery? why the disappearing original data, the trickery, the changing of readings, the deletions of info under FOI requests? why all the secrecy, attacks on other scientists, 'peer reviews' that they did themselves but figured no one would know because peer reviews are anonymous?

if you paid attention in science class, you'd know how much was destroyed too.

1) they think we're all stupid
2) if they can entrench themselves in world thought as legitimate, they win
3) Untold Trillions in their hands/at their disposal
4) Free reign (as the 800lb gorilla) in govts around the world

Or if I were an Obama loving, conservative Republican, who thought Carter is an authority on the middle east and knew people w/medical insurance who pay out-of-pocket instead of filling out forms. :zz:

Please, I beg of you, read something besides the right-wing blogosphere.

No, the guys I spoke of are in the CRU. These guys.

I don't know why I'm bothering :p , but try this (it's fairly accurate):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_371223.html

More hard hitting INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM from the HuffPooPoo. Always known for being unbiased. The NY Times Is another good one. Have you seen MSNBC lately? Govt. backed and endorsed propaganda.

Like the Huffington Post!

Those poor guys were subject to a crime.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...criminal-probe

oops and now NASA may be facing some scrutiny.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-climate-data/

Are you as delusional in real life as you are here? Huffington???

As stated before if global warming was as clear-cut as some may believe there would NEVER be a need to juggle data. The fact that not only was data manipulated and destroyed, the process was discussed and now the hackers are at fault in Boxer's eye as opposed to the scientists? These hackers should be praised as whistle-blowers and receive compensation for exposing this fraud. IMO Look at the money we will save by avoiding Cap and Trade taxes. And if you want a project to do in between Jimmy Carter novelettes look up who originated the carbon credit bartering system. Hint it wasn't Al Gore though like other inventions he has taken the credit.

As climate czar Carol Brower says, "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists [of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.] These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."

Huffingtonpost.com

Me? I’ll stick with the 31,486 American Scientists (9,029 w/PHDs) who all have disenting oppinions from Brower’s 2,500

Petitionproject.org

Okay, try again with that evil, liberal, biased, left-wing organization, the Associated Press.

Meanwhile, I'm going to finish formulating my pick-6 tickets. And I'm going to use that trick of Steve Crist's to manipulate my numbers ;)

[quote]Scrutiny is excellent. For the scientists.

I did say, "It's fairly accurate". It has it's little left wing rants. Feel free to completely ignore those. But the facts stand up.

You always leave yourself some wiggle-room, don't ya.....:)

No, I try not to be stupidly black and white.

No, it's not.

didn't the ipcc get it's numbers from the scientists who were hacked into?

lol not in this instance. anyone questioning, skeptical, needed to study in science class. those of us who raise an eyebrow are evidently too stupid to know better, and are supposed to just take the scientists on one end of the spectrum at their word, while completely ignoring anyone else...yeah, that's grey in there. :rolleyes: