Climategate: NOAA and NASA Complicit in Data Manipulation
Recent revelations from the Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showed how all the data centers — most notably NOAA and NASA — conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did.
This has inspired climate researchers worldwide to take a hard look at the data proffered, by comparing it to the original data and to other data sources. An in-depth report, co-authored by myself and Anthony Watts for the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), compiles some of the initial alarming findings with case studies included from scientists around the world.
We don’t dispute the fact that there has been some cyclical warming in recent decades — most notably from 1979 to 1998 — but cooling took place from the 1940s to the late 1970s, again after 1998, and especially after 2001, all while CO2 rose. This fact alone questions the primary role in climate change attributed to CO2 by the IPCC, environmental groups, and others.
However, the global surface station data is seriously compromised.
There was a major station dropout — and an increase in missing data from remaining stations — which occurred suddenly around 1990. Just about the time the global warming issue was being elevated to importance in political and environmental circles.
A clear bias was found towards removing higher elevation, higher latitude, and rural stations — the cooler stations — during this culling process, though that data was not also removed from the base periods from which “averages,” and then anomalies, were computed.
The data also suffers contamination by urbanization and other local factors, such as land-use/land-cover changes and improper siting.
There are also uncertainties in ocean temperatures. This is no small issue, as oceans cover 71% of Earth’s surface.
These factors all lead to significant uncertainty and a tendency for overestimation of century-scale temperature trends. A conclusion from all findings suggests that global databases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends, or rankings, or to validate model forecasts. Consequently, such surface data should be ignored for political decision-making.
Prior to the release of this paper, KUSI’s John Coleman — founder of The Weather Channel — aired a one hour prime-time special: Global Warming: The Other Side. The special was so successfully received that KUSI will be doing another special in February.
NOAA has already responded to the preliminary paper supporting John Coleman’s special through the Yale Climate Forum:
The accuracy of the surface temperature record can be independently validated against satellite records. Over the period from 1979 to present where satellite lower-tropospheric temperature data is available, satellite and surface temperatures track quite well.
Actually Klotzbach et al. (2009) found that when the satellites were first launched, their temperature readings were in relatively good agreement with the surface station data. There has been increasing divergence over time (exceeding 0.4C now), but the divergence does not arise from satellite errors. Further, they found that the divergence between surface and lower-tropospheric measurements, which has probably continued, is consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.
And now we also discover that water vapour in a certain section of the atmosphere, actually COOLS the Earth. But then, anyone who thinks about all the various factors long enough, could tell you that the Earth’s atmosphere has developed a number of massive self-correcting mechanisms that a pittance of CO2 could never overwhelm.
Duh!wight to the rescue in three…. two………… one and three-quarters…………………………………..
Otter: Likewise the oceans act as a massive buffering system for CO2 following the formula taught at one time to high school chemistry students (in the old days outside of Berkeley) when real teachers used soft drinks to illustrate how CO2 bubbles out when the pressure drops. Gee, CO2 plus H2O = H2CO3.
The amount of CO2 buffered in the water on the earths surface is massive compared to the tiny amount created by man. Mr. Sun “unexpectedly” plays a role in this exchange. Incidentally, the same reactions take place for chloride ion exchange which is many times larger than the amount from CFCs in the inhalers that we used to have to treat asthma. Again, Mr. Sun seems to determine the size of the ozone layer, but that doesn’t fit the alarmist scenario.
They need to start over. 1st, fix the obvious thermometer/data problem which biases the temperatures. 2nd, reexamine how much any warming is natural based on historical trends…it’s more that what the warmists are saying:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/extreme-cool-warm.html
Hey, Obama admitted the data was questionable in the SOTU, but that we have to move forward with an Energy bill anyway because it’s the right thing to do. That darn Christian president is playing his Moral hand.
And, of course, NASA is in on it. What kind of self-respecting Evolutionist isn’t part of the NWO?
Slightly off topic but relevant: Here is another UN fib. This time it’s about the Amazon rain forests: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/28/save-rainforest-climate-change-scandal-chopped-facts/?test=latestnews
(H/T Breitbart’s Big Government)
Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
What’s the problem? If the data doesn’t fit the hypothesis, they correct the data. If the results still don’t create the desired conclusion, they adjust the model. Government money keeps rolling in. Politicians leap at chances to make our lives more expensive and difficult.
What are you, anti-science or something?
I have to go shovel the driveway.
Joseph – Viscount Lord Monckton has been saying virtually the same thing since late last year.
As Spock might say, I find it “fascinating” that NOAA, who launched those satellites with NASA supplying the launch facilities and vehicles, originally claimed that they would be “more accurate” than ground-based stations. Except that now, of course, the data the satellites are supplying is at odds with the conclusions that NOAA and NASA (for which read James Hansen & Co.) want based on their sociopolitical “agenda” and preconceived notions.
Since they can’t really “remove” the satellites the way they did ground-based stations that weren’t supplying data that “trended” in the “right direction”, I wait with not-so-bated breath for NASA and NOAA to declare that the satellites have “reached the end of their operational lifetimes”- and simply turn them off.
Thereby relieving themselves of the problem of disposing of the “inconvenient facts” that those satellites keep sending down by telemetry.
Oh, by the way, Osama bin Laden’s latest taped rant blames the U.S. for “global warming”. It must warm the cockles of the “warmists’” hearts that someone who (theoretically at least) hates Western civilization even worse than they do agrees with them.
For the rest of us, this is a strong indication that “Anthropogenic Global Warming” aka “Global Climate Change” has finally, and inevitably, jumped the shark.
clear ether
eon
Data, incorrect data, who needs data? Someone just made a speech saying that the evidence of global warming is massive, we must cap and tax. Jeez, don’t these independent scientists get it yet?
Remember:
The issue is never the issue.
The issue is control.
Snails & salt == Modern conservatives & science
Clearly, there is no temperature record that can be trusted. It is time for someone responsible to set forth a plan for creating stations and collecting data over the next few decades. So called “climate science” can become a genuine science but at this time it is not worthy of the name science.
Temperature records are not the only problem. The stations that collect CO2 concentrations from the atmosphere are woefully inadequate in number and poorly sited. Even worse, there is no theory that could explain how stations should be sited and the numbers needed. So called climate scientists work on the assumption that CO2 molecules are distributed randomly throughout the atmosphere all the way up to the stratosphere. Given that assumption, they have no motivation to create a better regime of stations. Genuine scientists would test the hypothesis that CO2 is randomly distributed throughout the atmosphere.
1950s Running out of water -Rachel Carlson
1960s Running out of food -Paul Erlich
1970s Too many people -Paul Erlich
1980s Global cooling -I forget
1990s Too much ozone -I forget
2000s Global Warming -unforgettable Al Gore
2010s NEXT?
And who is the watchdog tasked with the responsibility to fact-check and research issues so they can protect us from such scams? That’s right! It’s the MEDIA, who were in bed with the scammers from the very beginning!
A great deal of what’s wrong with this country today can be laid at the feet of the complicit watchdogs who allowed the house to be robbed in return for a couple of sausages.
I think it is time a magnifying glass was trained on these people, their education (or lack thereof), their salaries, their affiliations, their backgrounds and their public record. Shame them, humiliate them, mock them, contradic them and humble them. Then, dismiss them like the irrelavent has-beens they are!
Yeah? Well too damn bad. You want to burden the entire productive world with trillions of dollars/pounds/euros/yuan/yen/etc in “cap and trade”, then suffer the damn burden. Otherwise, get lost.
BC, it must be a very bitter pill to take when all the evidence for AGW is evaporating and only leaving you with silly sayings.
BC:
Progressives + science = Lysenko
BC, are you truly this dense?
Placating those who question AGW (When really there’s nothing to question in regards to that faux ‘science’) on a political crusade is asinine.
I’m a lifelong Independent voter and Meteorologist. I’ve worked for NWS/NOAA in the past and saw firsthand the fudging of ‘data’.
So according to your ‘fascinating’ political comment, I have an outside interest in the matter. Though I do have vast more knowledge, experience than you obviously possess regarding climatology.
It’s ever so apparent when you don’t, or can’t use your own verbage. Usually a cut and paste or website reference (Yeah, what happened to WMO, WWF or those other ‘institutions of science’ you so often espouse?) is your M O.
I find it both funny and frighteningly sad that people like yourself CONTINUE to use emotional nonsense and blatantly doctored/ missing data for validity over science.
Climate change will never be a ‘settled science (you got that, Sen. Rangel?)’. Not to mention nearly all aspects of science is not ‘settled’. To think otherwise is ignorant to the extreme.
To have a bipartisan discussion on the FACTS would be a starting point.
Though considering Teleprompter Guy said in his SotU address claiming ‘overwhelming evidence to support global warming is..’, IPCC’s Pachauri is not resigning et al., – We’ve a long way to go..
BC: progressives are to truth (honesty, deceny, compassion, USA, freedom, liberty, unity, strength, faith, Constitution, individualism) what vampires are to a crucifix. Put another way, my a$$ and toilet paper equal progressives and deceit.
12. BC:
Lie, Cheat, Steal. Bring to a boil. Add pinch of eugenics and simmer = progressive science
For the record, most of the world’s weather stations are NOT taken, recorded by hand. Manned weather stations are usually at/ near international/ national airports and nearly all military installations. yes, there are larger populations in urban areas though more times than not a larger population, collectively is outside these cities (look at the recent Scott Brown election outcome).
Again, most temperatures gathered worldwide are unmanned. Thus sensors are often on or near a metal and/ or cement platform. Or temperature sensors being between a building(s). Or debris of some kind at, on the sensor can go unnoticed for days, years, etc.,
Volunteers or ‘co-op’ stations are a major player in temperature data in rural locations worldwide. It’d be interesting if a study had been done on frequency, accuracy and correct procedure when using this data. These volunteers use handheld digital readouts, digital readouts from computers computer and even the dated ‘sling’. Both the handheld and the sling need to be stored in a cool, dry area. Furthermore the sling has a cotton-like wick which needs to be kept clean and moistened with room temperature water.
I’ve worked in India and Mali, respectively. I was guinea pig’d to be the ‘co-op liaison’. Nearly every location I’d visited the volunteer broke protocol on the use, function and annotation of the ‘data’.
Yep, I’ve ‘a lot’ of confidence in the 2007 IPCC report..!
You should all come to the 4th International Climate change Conference-http://www.heartland.org/events/2010Chicago/index.html.
Where Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts will both be sepaking.
Judging from the responses, BC appears to be Duh!wight-light.
12. BC: It must suck to have your cherished belief in your own intellectual superiority, rooted in science, so brutally overturned in such a brief period of time.
Turns out that the old leftist adage that “everything is political” was applied to science, in a strangely similar manner to… medieval Catholicism.
OK BC, Answer some questions:
1. If you are correct and humans are causing global warming, but we take action to stop global warming, how will we know when we are done?
2. Why was the current 10 trend in temperature decline not predicted in the late 90′s?
3. If human activity can cause and correct global warming, them human activity could cause global cooling. If it happened, what actions would you propose to stop global cooling?
4. Any true science is based on falsifiable hypotheses. What specific data (e.g. Ten years of declining temperatures) would falsify global warming?
Dearest BC, Speaking of snails, your precious “crisis” formerly known as “global warming” is turning out to be little more than the slimey trail snails leave behind.
Dear BC,
You were almost right, let me help you a little…
Snails & salt == Modern conservatives & junk science
Anyway, I’m not hearing that old Refrain “Peer Reviewed” I first heard when the climategate letters were first released. Wonder why?
Could it be because they are now finding that the IPC relied more on WWF Newsletters than on Actual Peer Reviewed Science? (Of course only for the very best reasons – to force governments to act properly.)
Nah, liberals would never corrupt science to advance an agenda. Couldn’t happen.
And those e-mails that were meaningless,
Guess they weren’t so meaningless afterall.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf
jd
Dave M,
Never forget, Climate Change is what you call Global Warming when your Global Warming Conference/Summit/Protest is snowed out.
paul_unalaska said:
BC, are you truly this dense?
And the answer: Of course he is and he insists on reminding us.
Osama is now leading the global warming charge.
If he can convince fundamentalists Islamic people to stop breathing Co2,
terrorism and global warming will be solved.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100129/D9DHDH582.html
BC, so good to have you back. Trolls have been a little harder to find around here lately, so thanks for the little mindless break from civility that you reliably offer.
Here’s another tidbit from “Science Daily”:
A new peer-reviewed study highlighted in a Science Daily article suggests that carbon feedback estimates are as much as 80% too high. This essentially means that warming projections could be significantly overdone. The key conclusion from the abstract reads:
Our results are incompatibly lower (P < 0.05) than recent pre-industrial empirical estimates of ~40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C (refs 6, 7), and correspondingly suggest ~80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming.
It is a scintific fact that nature banances everything. Not scientific enough for modern scientists however, they don’t like anything they can’t control.
They picked the wrong gas. They needed to show the industrial gas CO2 as the AGW culprit to support their political/fiancial agenda’s. The only problem was they had to cook the books to support this claim. We must defund the IPCC and vote the enablers, namely the socialist democrats, who funded this fraud, out of office and boot their non american commie rear ends all the way to cuba in the next elections
Where is the drum beat to go out and tar and feather AL GORE! This man is a disgrace. I have yet to hear him respond back against all the data that is coming forward or give up the money he made!
Thank you for doing this research. There are a lot of conjucation errors in this piece – data is the plural of datum. It is not singular.
It is time to take a long, hard look at criminal prosecutions of some of the more flagrant fraudsters. Specifically, those who obtained state and federal funds under false pretenses need to be indicted, tried, and, if convicted, sentenced to prison. Only after hucksters who have posed as “scientists” are made bitches in the C Block will we get past graft-influenced fraud to verifiable and accurate results. Given the current Administration is so invested financially and politically in AGW fraud, state and local prosecutors may have to start long overdue proceedings against these monsters.
There’s a big difference between saying “there are some problems with the data; let’s get it right.” and “this is all bs and we don’t have to pay any attention to it!”
So anyone who cares should spend a few hours at Real Climate and a few hours at Watts up with that and you will begin to see the complexity of climate measurement. The science is definitely not settled, but neither is it in so much in disrepute that it can be ignored. What denialists excel at is taking a few chunks of information, writing to the lay public and saying, “See, this is all bs.”
I was trying to find the thread in Watts that the Real Climate guys were mocking because Watts was not grasping the concept of the anomalies. Current stations in the final compilations are not credited with absolute reading but how they positively or negatively respond to the average FOR THAT STATION. The Denialists claim that by getting rid of the “colder” stations, the AGW folks are fudging the date, while the AGW people say that is irrelevant because stations are recorded against their own averages, not the average of the since-abandoned “cold” stations. There is another study that (supposedly) shows that the abandoned “cold” stations, were they continued in the data pool, would NOT have lowered the temps, but if anything would have raised it, given the anomalie method.
Watts appears to ask tough questions, but also does not have a great grasp on some things. McIntyre and Lindzen are much more knowledgeable, I think. So I should spend some time on McIntyre’s Climate Audit. I will.
For me , the theory (global warming ,based on fixed temperature readings) is based on a fraudulent assumption. The assumption being that a collection of data can be assigned an average or variance based on repeated readings. The assumption is incorrect for an given global area. It depends on how many collection points placed in a given area. The more readings, the more data recovered. It may seem that the averages will become more accurate but it is much more complicated than that. It soon becomes a question of saturation .
How many readings are enough for any given area? For example, how many readings are made for a 100 square mile area of the Sahara Desert? As opposed to 100 square mile area of the South Atlantic Ocean. What about the variance occurring in those areas which are not recorded?
The problem becomes one of scale. If the data recovered cannot accurately reflect the scale of the subject ( the global sphere) then the basic assumption is flawed.
Therefore the modeling and forecasting results are flawed and not reliable.
WRJonas;
Check out the following,
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
I think you’ll find it to be enlightening.
I just turned up the thermostat …while I still can. While I still have a house.
Sorry guys, but you global warming deniers have more than worn out your “The Boy Who Cried Hoax” BS. Climate science is complicated like quantum mechanics and actually has more uncertainty because of the many, many factors involved in both measurement and theory, but for some reason, while most people wouldn’t dream of second guessing quantum physics, they feel fine and dandy however becoming ersatz amateur climatologists. As is usual, stuff like this water vapor thing gets twisted completed out of context in order to be made into a fake BFD to try to — yet again — cast doubt on the extensive research done and being done on global warming.
Re. BC @42: Yeah, nobody ever second guesses quantum physics – except every quantum physicist who has ever lived. But you are right about the model being complex. Climate is a chaotic phenomenon at best and more likely it requires some other mathematical methods and data collection capability that we just don’t have. That’s why we can’t believe them or act upon them as if they reflect any sort of reality – especially when constructed by people who make their living scamming the rest of us. Even if there was no data manipulation it would be extraordinarily stupid to compromise our standard of living based on the conclusions that are tortured out of these so called models.
And I will admonish myself here for even responding to BC for whom left/liberalism and all of its causes are a religion. Like Ross Perot said: It’s like wrestling with a pig in the mud. The pig loves it and you can’t win.
Hey BC, since you are so enamoured with Quantum Physics, I strongly suggest you read the following;
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
That’s right, the same report I listed in 40 above.
Read it and weep.
jd
BC Jan 29, 2010 – 4:32 pm
Nice job of undercutting your entire argument. Climate science from the warming perspective refuses to acknowledge the inherent uncertainty of their calculations and projections. You might want to get a science or math degree before you start pontificating about QM and uncertainty.
I have to wonder, why are we even keeping those birds (i.e. Satelites) up there if we’re not actually using their data? Especially in something as “important” as Global Warming?
Don’t feed the BC troll. He is pretty much a maroon.
“I wait with not-so-bated breath for NASA and NOAA to declare that the satellites have “reached the end of their operational lifetimes”- and simply turn them off.”
Wait no more. NASA is in big trouble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget
Funding is being cut to 1960 levels( in constant 2007 dollars). That pretty much means the end of the space program as we know it. So you can expect two things. First a barrage of junk science support the latest wacko theory out of the White House today. This is a well known D.C. dance called ‘grovelling for dollars’.
The Second will be a host of space program junkies that look up from their test tubes long enough to notice all the lab equipment is being moved out and sold at auction. Then they will appeal to the public and try to move the politicians to give them back their funding.
The Satts aren’t much use when the guys collecting the data are down at the Quick Stop filling out a job ap.
BTW, anyone out there that still hasn’t figured out after the SOTU that our bud Obama intends on destroying America should put on your thinking cap. Socialism will never put a man on the moon. Post-Obama America won’t either.
Good thing that we have really smart people like Al Gore to keep us all safe. Did he do his undergrad work in Quantum Physics?
Voodoo science is good enough for our President and Congress. Believe me, they surely do not want the truth. In spite of the snickering while the dimwit gave the STOU address.
Those of us, Left or Right, who have either questioned or ridiculed AGW, at this point, have one question to ask: Why do the True Believers continue to pose their positiion, without question?
The answer, the best I can ascertain, is religious fanaticism. These folks not only thrive on “Faith” but intend to launch a Crusade against the Unbelievers.
God deliver us from these New Crusaders, and let us hope they OD on pills or HIV or whatever reduces them according to Darwinian principles.
BC~ Let’s see: an interview over the phone becomes an article of your faith in a busted science mag becomes a peer-reviewed paper in the IPCC report. That’s some heavy-duty extensive research!
You really are Duh!wight-light.
I remember the global cooling/impending ice age hysteria in the 1970′s. Every argument being used to promote global warming now was used to convice people of the urgent need to fight the coming ice age: “If we don’t act soon, it will be too late!” Others warned of mass species extinction, famine, etc. Back then, however, then there was no internet and no 24 HR cable news cycle.
The global warming cause is really an attack on capitalisim. Authors like Sinclair Lewis – who wrote about life working in the meat packing plants in Chicago – tried to convince the world that capitalism caused poverty and misery. That argument didn’t hold up – as the U.S. and other western democracies have established a standard of living that is the envy of the world. And so the anti-capitalists have a new tactic: capitalism causes bad weather – global warming.
aclay1: “Conjucation” is spelled with a “g”. Heh.
Sir Cut n Pas.. err.. BC, thank you for the ‘informative’ links. Hmmm, ALL were attributed by NOAA, NASA and GISS contributors. You know, those stalwarts of ‘true science’.
Speaking of ‘..amateur climatologists’, where did you study and where do you contribute your knowledge, findings? By all means, do share..
They blinded me with SCIENCE!!! SCIENCE!!!!
-” ..“there are some problems with the data; let’s get it right.” ..”
Gee, a little late; aren’t you? Maybe next time you’ll look at the facts FIRST before proclaiming ‘We’re all gonna die!’
-”What denialists excel at is taking a few chunks of information, writing to the lay public and saying, “See, this is all bs.””
What Climate Scientologists excel at is not proving their wild assertions. You are the ones claiming that the sky is falling. Prove it or go away.
“It is quite likely that, a decade or two from now, the number of stations available for the 1990s and 2000s will exceed the 6,000-station peak reached in the 1970s.”
I call bullshit. Two DECADES to fold in current data? Why, it’s almost as if OCR hasn’t been in use for over a decade.
The most damning item revealed may the inclusion of records into the averages that were then excluded from final records. That is a clear fraud. If I claim that the average is x it is assumed by everyone that the records used to determine x are then used in the dataset. Tlak about apples and oranges.
It may be that there has actually been no 20th centruy warming in total. That is simply mind boggling compared to what everyone “knows” to be the case.
Every time I hear the CO2 argument as a global warming gas I recall some “scientist” on Fox displaying a tube with a photosensor at one end, introducing CO2 to the tube and TA DA, less light reaches the sensor. I fail to see the connection although he explained it. If less light reaches the earth from the sun due to CO2 it seems to me that we should get colder but, he explained that the heat is trapped by the CO2. Which heat is that? From my house? From my car? my dog?
I reach back to my childhood when a vacuum salesman came to my house (do they still have those?)and wowed my Mom with a demonstration of the vacuum’s power. A tube and a ball that just fits the tube with the vacuum at the other end. Just look at the power of this machine as it sucked the ball up the tube! I was only 9 at the time but, I was still smart enough to see junk science when it’s being sold to me (or my Mom).
Thank God I remain so!
To Mike G: Hah! Thanks for proving my point(s) about right wing BS-ing: you paraphrased me as saying “Yeah, nobody ever second guesses quantum physics – except every quantum physicist who has ever lived.”
Compare that to what I actually wrote: “Climate science is complicated like quantum mechanics and actually has more uncertainty because of the many, many factors involved in both measurement and theory, but for some reason, while most people wouldn’t dream of second guessing quantum physics, they feel fine and dandy however becoming ersatz amateur climatologists.”
And that pretty much sums out how global warming deniers (as well as right wing numbnuts in general) “debate” issues. Schmuck(s).
The only thing the NOAA has that’s worth anything is the NWS.
Climate science may be complicated in the whole, but measuring temperatures is not. 75% of temperature measuring stations have been eliminated, most of which were in high altitudes or places which would cause cooler readings. For example, Bolivia has no temperature stations–the temperatures are extrapolated from a coastal station in Peru and a station in the Amazon. If you are remotely familiar with geography, you will understand that this is utter nonsense. Furthermore, there are ENTIRE Canadian Provinces which have no measuring stations.
On top of that, NASA and NOAA scientists have been applying “corrections” to existing temperature data to “normalize” it. There is evidence that the temperature stations from the 80s were highly inaccurate, but no such evidence exists for stations in the early 20th century or many other stations. (In one case, the NOAA simply adjusted all the readings of one station up 11 degrees based on nothing.)
As for CO2 concentrations. They were measured by scientists going back to the early 19th century. Using the same methods today we have discovered NO increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and, in fact, a small decrease.
All this translates into the simply fact, not conjecture, that NASA, NOAA, IPCC and other organizations had a theory and have been manipulating and making up data to fit that theory. One does not have to be a “climatologist” to know that without valid base data, everything else is bogus. (You also don’t have to be a “climatologist” to know that science isn’t about computer models if those models can’t be verified and, in fact, are repeatedly contradicted by actual, physical measurements.)
I note BC (or should we call him BS) is silent on the Physics of CO2.
Crickets Chirping.
Guess he can’t handle the truth.
jd
56 Nick Reynolds – yeah I miss the 80′s too, when the liberals were too pre-occupied, with telling us how anti-missile systems could never work, to have time to dream up global warming.
#42
Now that hilarious – using as a reference the very place that the post is showing to be a massive fraud.
Oh, and BC? Why don’t you tell us again about how that petition project was filled with fake names…with most of the originating IP addresses being from RealClimate and three or four of their main posters/contributors?
Fraud, fakery and gross misrepresentation is part and parcel of the AGW alarmists.
BC: If you want an intelligent debate, you can start by answering my questions.
Debate? The debate is over, dont’cha’know? Silly things like facts and data just cloud the issue. It’s been proven, Al Gore said so. It must be true.
Where is my limo and pvt jet?
The mistake everyone makes is the unwarranted use of the terms Climate Science & Climate Scientists. The people associated with those magical climate prognostications are no more “scientists” than used car sales men. They are in the game only for public funding of their preposterous notions & personal glory. Honest scientists are truly insulted by their deceitful practices.
By the way if you care to learn what Quantum Physics is all about read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_physics and you will see it is a study of natural mechanisms and not an effort to play demigods to a gullible public.
BC, rather than using childish insults (‘right wing numbnuts’ for starters) and your blatant pouting.. answer the question posed by Paul from Hamburg.
You see, this is how discussion, eventual resolution evolves. 2 or more parties discuss a topic and find a median.
It may be difficult for you to fathom this ‘ogre-like concept’. Considering the Democratic party doesn’t believe in such ‘roadblocks’ with attempted steamrolling of mandated health insurance, crap and trade, a $1.9 trillion increase to our national debt with the vote of an out-the-door interim Senator, trying 9/11 terrorists as common criminals with the public footing the dime, on and on.
Now, you may turnaround and throw up references to Republicans, Independents partaking in the very same abuse of power as well. That says maybe.
What I have to ask. When will your party, the Democratic party, learn from such follies? Obviously, a vast majority of Americans with ~ an 85 I.Q. see the recent Government actions as criminal. Look, even the Illinois Senate race has the Republican ticket edging ahead. Illinois!?
This isn’t the work of ‘tea party folks’ or ‘middle age white people’. Collectively peopleof all walks have grown tiresome in 3 years of a Democratically-led Senate and 1 year of an Obama directionless administration.
Your party *ucked up in underestimating the AMERICAN will. Not one particular party but a myriad of all.
Today’s question: what is the apparent effect of reduced water vapor in the stratosphere and what are the implications? As for why it has been reduced, no one yet knows or even has a convincing theory.
Nonsense, and easily refuted:
http://keithpickering.blogspot.com/2010/02/station-dropout-problem-more-non.html
I Like Your blog about Climategate: NOAA and NASA Complicit in Data Manipulation.really great post.i am very happy to read of your blog.its brilliant.
Thanks.