Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

erranta

Climate Change Chief Scientist 'loses' All Data!

Recommended Posts

A 'huddle' of these brain-washed sanctimonius tossers (from Uni. East Anglia Climatology) had me banned for showing them up on another web site! :lol:

Here we go

"We've LOST the Numbers"

The World's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record.

The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.

The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection - except to hand-picked academics - for several years

Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:

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!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

It just stinks of fraud!

It's really important - coz we are being and going to be Massively taxed Xtra £££'s for years because of this fraud!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Makes you sick doesn't it?

I think most right-thinking people can see global warming (oh sorry, it's now called climate change to cover all bases!) is a scam. This doesn't surprise me at all.

I just spotted the Xtra 'flawed' lies in Prof Jones statement about "loosing ALL the Data"

If he has previously given the data out to his 'chosen ones' - it must still exist! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between about 1975 and 2000, the rise in global annual average air temperatures bore a close relationship to the rise in the level of man-made CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. Since about 2000 the CO2 levels have continued upwards but the temperatures have not, although 2007 was a very hot year. We all know there's a scientific explanation of how CO2 emissions could increase the greenhouse effect and therefore cause global warming, but there's no scientific proof that has happened because ithe data can't be isolated from natural variations in climate. Each year that doesn't fit the upward temperature trend dilutes the admittedly convincing statistics for the period between 1975 and 2000.

I do strongly support the drive for renewable energy and less pollution though - we need the technology now to help conserve finite supplies of fossil fuels and to provide power when these fuels eventually run out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember back in Feb this year reading about a NASA satellite going 'missing' The satellite was supposed to measure carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and provide information on climate change.

You really couldn't make this stuff up!

http://www.meteorologynews.com/2009/02/24/...-lost-in-space/

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/news/oco-20090717.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A 'huddle' of these brain-washed sanctimonius tossers (from Uni. East Anglia Climatology) had me banned for showing them up on another web site! :lol:

Here we go

"We've LOST the Numbers"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

It just stinks of fraud!

It's really important - coz we are being and going to be Massively taxed Xtra £££'s for years because of this fraud!

So says 'theregister.co.uk' that centre of peer-reviewed scientific papers. Do you even know what data has been lost? Or any reason to think it is significant? You sad climate denialists make me laugh. You actually think you're contrarians despite the fact that your crusade it is precisely in the interests of every major corporation, oil company and Western government that we continue to do nothing about the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So says 'theregister.co.uk' that centre of peer-reviewed scientific papers. Do you even know what data has been lost? Or any reason to think it is significant? You sad climate denialists make me laugh. You actually think you're contrarians despite the fact that your crusade it is precisely in the interests of every major corporation, oil company and Western government that we continue to do nothing about the problem.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So says 'theregister.co.uk' that centre of peer-reviewed scientific papers. Do you even know what data has been lost?

You only need peer review when you don't have the backing of some Industry shill. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the enviroMentalists I've had the misfortune to come across are also peak oil-ists. If they believe in the latter why worry about the former?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of the enviroMentalists I've had the misfortune to come across are also peak oil-ists. If they believe in the latter why worry about the former?

Peak oil = end of civilisation

Climate change = end of human race

Solution = Do something now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So says 'theregister.co.uk' that centre of peer-reviewed scientific papers. Do you even know what data has been lost? Or any reason to think it is significant? You sad climate denialists make me laugh. You actually think you're contrarians despite the fact that your crusade it is precisely in the interests of every major corporation, oil company and Western government that we continue to do nothing about the problem.

+1

spot on

Peak oil = end of civilisation

Climate change = end of human race

Solution = Do something now

+1 too.

So many on this forum simply think if dealing with climate change doesn't allow them to make profit, it can't be true and must be a conspiracy. Wishful non-thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of the enviroMentalists I've had the misfortune to come across are also peak oil-ists. If they believe in the latter why worry about the former?

I'm not sure I fully get this, but basically the latest research by the 'peer-review enviroMentalists' is that we will have long passed the point of climate armageddon before the last, reasonably accessible, barrel of oil is sucked out of Iraq, ANWAR or wherever. We have, eg, used up 500 billion tons of carbon since 1750 and, according to the Enviromentalists aka peer-review Oxford modellers, we can emit no more than another 500 billion tonnes of carbon if we are to avoid a greater than 2oC global warming (the current favourite armageddon point). But there's probably a lot more than 500 billion tonnes of carbon (or equivalent) out there. So peak oil will not save the atmosphere, rather if climate change does not f*** us up then peak oil (eg resource depletion) almost certainly will. Happy days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peak oil = end of civilisation

Climate change = end of human race

Solution = Do something now

Any change down from todays lifestyles is a change for the worse. Surely it's better to admit we've had a good innings, try our best to figure out controllable fusion but if we can't just die out reasonably quickly rather than go through a slow and extremely painful and violent decline back to the dark ages? If I believed we were going to be out of oil in 10 years yet had kids now I think that would make me far worse than the 'baby p' types who are currently selling the advertising space in the tabloids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So says 'theregister.co.uk' that centre of peer-reviewed scientific papers. Do you even know what data has been lost? Or any reason to think it is significant? You sad climate denialists make me laugh. You actually think you're contrarians despite the fact that your crusade it is precisely in the interests of every major corporation, oil company and Western government that we continue to do nothing about the problem.

Anyone who equates a person having serious doubts over theoretical climate predictions which seem to change every month with another person who doubts that millions of people died in the Holocaust despite the documented historical proof by the use of the words "denier" or "denialist" has lost rational perspective of the issue. It is nothing more than an intellectually dishonest dirty trick to shut down debate.

I am an envirosceptic but I believe that peak oil is a problem.

I believe in recycling, cleaner energy and so on but it doesn't mean I have to believe every doomladen climate change model or even believe that man may be causing it. I have as much trust in the vested interests of the climate change movement as I do the vested interests of "every major corporation, oil company and Western government".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey

seems to me that this climate change distraction is just a modern variant of plato's "noble lie"

ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW: PLATO'S NOBLE LIE IN ACTION

Ryan J. Norton (John Whitmire) Department of Philosophy and Religion, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC 28723

Traditionally, detractors have criticized the dissemination of information from ruling body to constituency as propaganda, assertions aimed at convincing the target audience of a specific agenda; the prevailing logic affirms that governments keep their citizens ignorant of sensitive data that could potentially distract them from what is paramount: promoting the stability of the state. The public, primarily concerned with following its immediate interests, is ill equipped to dictate the fate of any nation. Platonic thought follows this line of argumentation, claiming common laborers do not possess the training, nor the constitution required to properly rule, nor would they ever. Administering the government is simply not within their nature. What sort of individual would then be qualified to fulfill the role of legislator? Plato is not comfortable to leave such a decision up to chance; rulers are not found, they are cultivated. Divinding the population into three distinct groups: producers, auxiliaries, and guardian-rulers, Plato outlines the steps necessary to establish the best city imaginable. Most importantly, the founders of this perfect city must convince the inhabitants that they should not strive for more than they are capable, a daunting task given the covetous nature of humanity. How could such a Herculean feat be accomplished? Plato believed his doctrine of the Noble Lie held the answer, persuading the people of a falsehood, so that a greater good than satisfying their immediate desires could be met. To contemporary society, which espouses the belief that all things are possible for the individual willing to apply themselves, the notion of sanctioning a rigid caste system seems counter-intuitive. For Plato, individual freedoms must submit to the will of the community. Examination of the Noble Lie will yield various truths concerning American politics. Amongst them, how seemingly noble falsehoods are used as a means of meeting dubious ends and what the implications of such an assertion are for the future of American politics.

http://www.dominican.edu/query/ncur/display_ncur.php?id=2279

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Enron accounting practices have been adopted by the scientific community? I was under the impression that in the age of exponentially increasing computing capacity, mass storage and, cough, global warming, we could at least manage to keep relevant data in the right place and back it up regularly. What the bleep is going on here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peak oil = end of civilisation

Climate change = end of human race

Solution = Do something now

No one knows the true World Oil reserves because no country will release any information!

Stock market speculation - is exactly that!

If peak oil now - it will take decades++ to deplete till too expensive(depending on how the elites have it FIXED!)

Climate Change is/has been proven a complete falsehood

So quit yer scare mongering!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who equates a person having serious doubts over theoretical climate predictions which seem to change every month with another person who doubts that millions of people died in the Holocaust despite the documented historical proof by the use of the words "denier" or "denialist" has lost rational perspective of the issue. It is nothing more than an intellectually dishonest dirty trick to shut down debate.

I am an envirosceptic but I believe that peak oil is a problem.

I believe in recycling, cleaner energy and so on but it doesn't mean I have to believe every doomladen climate change model or even believe that man may be causing it. I have as much trust in the vested interests of the climate change movement as I do the vested interests of "every major corporation, oil company and Western government".

I didn't mention the Holocaust. I actually think the parallels are much stronger between evolution and climate change denial, since both turn on the definition of 'sound science.' Holocaust denial is 99% pathalogy. But I prefer 'denialist' or 'denier' as, in my experience, those who deny the reality of man-made climate change either (i) know almost nothing about the physical processes behind it or (ii) are trained scientists but have decided for some reason that it's easier to get an audience if they take an opposing stand. 'Sceptic' glamourises climate deniers - Socrates, Hume, Mill could well have called themselves 'sceptics.' Deniers are not contrarians either, since their views tie in very well with the overwhelming majority of powerful interests in industrialised countries. Having doubts about the projections of climate models is natural and normal - the modellers themselves have doubts and are constantly refining them. They seem of use as they explain many things about the climate system that no other sort of explanation, certainly not one provided by 'sceptics', can explain.

On the VI issue. Just think about it. First, the average salary of even a very successful Envionmentalist is 60k. Pat Michaels, Lomborg, Singer, Lindzen, Nigel Lawson FFS could earn that much by giving a couple of psuedo scientific after dinner speeches at the CBI or oil company nosh up. Second, this all-powerful, scary, VI spin machine that is the 'great global warming conspiracy' which is going to eat all our babies and leave old people to die in the cold has had so much success that global greenhouse emissions continue to grow every year, recently by an increasing amount, totally oblivious to Kyoto, Al Gore or all the other climate VIs. If the property lobby had had so much success you could still get a detached bungalow in Winchester for 30 grand.

Finally, for those who believe peak oil is the main problem, sleep easy there's more than enough oil and other fossil fuel goodies (3-5 trillion tonnes of carbon equivalent) for us to toast ourselves and future generations. So, denialists, you've won but don't expect to take the moral high ground as well FFS.

Edit for typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one knows the true World Oil reserves because no country will release any information!

Stock market speculation - is exactly that!

If peak oil now - it will take decades++ to deplete till too expensive(depending on how the elites have it FIXED!)

Climate Change is/has been proven a complete falsehood

So quit yer scare mongering!

Has it? By who?

The glee you show at the prospect of a scientist losing data, if indeed there is any truth at all to the story, betrays your myopic viewpoint.

There's stacks of data out there, both proxy and direct which can be used for analysis. Data from sources as diverse as ice core oxygen isotope ratios to coral reef distribution data, glacial retreat analysis and ice sheet moulins and EQ characteristics, to name a few from hundreds of thousands of datasets worldwide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't mention the Holocaust. I actually think the parallels are much stronger between evolution and climate change denial, since both turn on the definition of 'sound science.' Holocaust denial is 99% pathalogy. But I prefer 'denialist' or 'denier' as, in my experience, those who deny the reality of man-made climate change either (i) no almost nothing about the physical processes behind it or (ii) are trained scientists but have decided for some reason that it's easier to get an audience if they take a contrarian stand. 'Sceptic' glamourises climate deniers - Socrates, Hume, Mill could well have called themselves 'sceptics.' Deniers are not contrarians either, since their views tie in very well with the overwhelming majority of powerful interests in industrialised countries. Having doubts about the projections of climate models is natural and normal - the modellers themselves have doubts and are constantly refining them. They seem of use as they explain many things about the climate system that no other sort of explanation, certainly not one provided by 'sceptics', can explain.

The use of the words "denier", "denialism" etc is a deliberate linguistic echo to Holocaust denial. While I accept you may not use the word with this gross insult towards people who disagree with you with that intention, it would be naive to say that the word has not been chosen intentionally because of its emotive connotations.

The fact that, like me, the vast majority of sceptics may know almost nothing about the physical process behind climate change nor the modelling that comes to that conclusion, is a valid criticism and is noted.

However, those backing MMGW as a theory have not helped themselves with the great unwashed by outrageous scaremongering and the fact that the confidence levels in the models (and the theories) don't seem to be that high amongst the scientific community. That doesn't mean that they are wrong, but to change the entire world system because of something that may or may not be true and trample on the lifestyles and feelings of those who don't buy into everything published is asking a lot.

I am all for science - we'd be screwed without it and MMGW may indeed be correct. I'd rather play safe than sorry by more efficient fuel use and better resource management.

However, please don't linguistically compare me or people who share some of my views with deniers of the Holocaust. It is an awful slur and I am sure you are better than that, sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has it? By who?

The glee you show at the prospect of a scientist losing data, if indeed there is any truth at all to the story, betrays your miopic viewpoint.

There's stacks of data out there, both proxy and direct which can be used for analysis. Data from sources as diverse as ice core oxygen isotope ratios to coral reef distribution data, glacial retreat analysis and ice sheet moulins and EQ characteristics, to name a few from hundreds of thousands of datasets worldwide.

Well said. First, no single data set will be decisive in settling any scientific controversy. Second, to find that a scientist who supports one side of a controversy has been lazy or fraudulent proves nothing on its own (otherwise the OP would have to reject the denialist worldview given the numerous dodgy adjustment of graphs, imaginary data sets and spurious objections that went with the makers of 'The Great Global Warming Conspiracy'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.