President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,494
6,716
113
Bullshit. Provide a link to a specific post where I said the "scientific community" is cooking the books.
So all those posts where you said NASA, NOAA, and IPCC are lying about results....


And I see you just skipped over the part where you admitted that a clear majority of the scientific community sees AGW as the dominant factor. Your own post admits:

12 or 15% see 'natural' causes as dominant
10 or 20% aren't sure how much warming is due to AGW
That means 78 or 65% see AGW as the dominant factor

Your own source admits it.:closed_2:
 

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,358
12
38
So all those posts where you said NASA, NOAA, and IPCC are lying about results....


And I see you just skipped over the part where you admitted that a clear majority of the scientific community sees AGW as the dominant factor. Your own post admits:

12 or 15% see 'natural' causes as dominant
10 or 20% aren't sure how much warming is due to AGW
That means 78 or 65% see AGW as the dominant factor

Your own source admits it.:closed_2:

Ah ha! Classic cherry picking. Classic spin move.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
You say correlation doesn't prove causation, but isn't that a convenient statement from a denier?
Absolutely not.

You can find correlations between all kinds of things. It doesn't prove that one caused the other.

For example, someone could find a correlation between fewer reports of violence in the schools and the times when public school students were expected to recite the Lord's Prayer. That doesn't prove that the Lord's Prayer prevents violence.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
And I see you just skipped over the part where you admitted that a clear majority of the scientific community sees AGW as the dominant factor. Your own post admits:

12 or 15% see 'natural' causes as dominant
10 or 20% aren't sure how much warming is due to AGW
That means 78 or 65% see AGW as the dominant factor

Your own source admits it.:closed_2:
Ah ha! Classic cherry picking. Classic spin move.
Try reading post 686 from Sunday:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5329320&viewfull=1#post5329320

I'm glad to see that we have finally found something we can all agree on -- that the claims of a 97% consensus are total B.S.

It took long enough (in Basketcase's case) but it's a breakthrough, all the same.



By the way, the percentage of AMS respondents who said global warming is happening and that it is mostly caused by humans was 52 per cent. The Netherlands support was 66 per cent.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
Also you can read it on Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the 'Consensus'

By James Delingpole –

One of the world’s most eminent climate scientists – for several decades a warmist – has defected to the climate sceptic camp.

Lennart Bengtsson – a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction – is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

For most of his career, he has been a prominent member of the warmist establishment, subscribing to all its articles of faith – up to and including the belief that Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick was a scientifically plausible assessment of the relationship between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature.

Read the rest at Breitbart.----> full story on http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus/
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
http://www.principia-scientific.org...as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html


Massive counterclaims, in excess of $10 million, have just been filed against climate scientist Michael Mann after lawyers affirmed that the former golden boy of global warming alarmism had sensationally failed in his exasperating three-year bid to sue skeptic Canadian climatologist, Tim Ball. Door now wide open for criminal investigation into Climategate conspiracy.Mann arrest photo

Buoyed by Dr Ball's successes, journalist and free-speech defender, Mark Steyn has promptly decided to likewise countersue Michael Mann for $10 million in response to a similar SLAPP suit filed by the litigious professor from Penn. State University against not just Steyn, but also the National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg. Ball's countersuit against Mann seeks "exemplary and punitive damages. " Bishop Hill blog is running extracts of Steyn's counterclaim, plus link.

Mann’s chief undoing in all such lawsuits is highlighted in a quote in Steyn’s latest counterclaim:

“Plaintiff continues to evade the one action that might definitively establish its [his science’s] respectability - by objecting, in the courts of Virginia, British Columbia and elsewhere, to the release of his research in this field. See Cuccinelli vs Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia...”

At last, after 3 years of legal wrangling, it is made clear why I was so bold as to formally undertake an indemnity to fully compensate Dr Ball for my own actions in the event Mann won the case. Respected Aussie climate commentator, Jo Nova was one of the few to commend my unparalled commitment to Ball's cause.

Steyn’s legal team, aware of the latest developments from Vancouver, have correctly adduced that Ball has effectively defeated Mann after the Penn. State pretender’s preposterous and inactive lawsuit against Ball was rendered dormant for failure to prosecute. Under law, Mann’s prevarications, all his countless fudging and evasiveness in the matter, establishes compelling evidence that his motive was not to prove Ball had defamed him, but more likely a cynical attempt to silence fair and honest public criticism on a pressing and contentious government policy issue.

The fact Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs "in the state pen, not Penn. State." In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball’s assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Mann’s work are likewise tainted, heaping more misery on the discredited UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science.

Where Do We Go From Here?

It will likely be open season on Mann. Anyone may now freely dismiss him in the harshest terms as a junk scientist who shilled for a failed global warming cabal. Without fear of his civil legal redress, we may now refer to Mann for what he is: a climate criminal, a fraudster.

Being that Mann's suit in the BC court was filed 3 years ago before he filed against Steyn, it appears Dr Ball will be first in line with his counterclaims and pipping Steyn for the well-deserved $10 million compensation prize. That’s if Mann's financial backers (most notably, the David Suzuki Foundation) aren't bankrupted first.

Woe for Weaver, too

But the more savvy climate analysts will note something here that is far more important scientifically than just Ball’s sensational legal victory over Mann. That is Ball’s more telling concurrent court triumph over Professor Andrew Weaver, “climate scientist” at the University of Victoria, BC, Deputy Leader of the Green Party of British Columbia, and a member of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly. Weaver has also established himself as the IPCC’s lead climate modeler.

Long-time readers may recall that Weaver also sued Ball for libel in February 2011, some months before Mann took a punt at it. David Suzuki's mouthpiece, desmogblog.com made huge fanfare of it at the time. Both Ball and I suffered the ignominy of having all our online articles removed from the Canada Free Press website after CFP caved into the bully boy tactics masterminded behind the scenes by the deep-pocketed David Suzuki and his Desmogblog cronies, who thereafter smeared my name, too).Suzuki

Weaver’s libel suit against Ball has also now been rendered dormant due to failure to prosecute because Weaver, like Mann, won’t disclose his (similarly dubious) metadata. Both these prominent men have been expensively represented by one of Canada’s top libel experts, Roger McConchie, who claims he “literally wrote the book on “Canadian Libel and Slander Actions.””

This is an epic double whammy for Ball. As an inadvertent courtroom martyr for climate skeptics Dr Ball has destroyed the credibility of both the IPPC paleoclimate record (Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph ‘science’) and all those IPCC computer model ‘projections’ of a dangerously warming climate (Weaver’s ‘science’). And all achieved in the most important ‘peer reviewed’ venue possible – a government court of law. The threat of the cold light of truth being shone on their "secret science" was a step too far for Mann and Weaver. As such, the alarmist (false) claims of a cooler past climate presented by Mann, and doomsaying computer model projections of a dangerously warming future climate, presented by the still hugely influential Weaver, would not stand up in court.

So, forget Steyn’s case – the court victories that count, in terms of the scientific (and political) consequences, are entirely due to Tim Ball. By tenaciously and bravely defending his actions for three long years the mild-mannered septaugenarian has single-handedly proved that the very core of government climate science is junk. Thereby, this instance of 'science on trial' is no less significant, in the broadest sociatal context, as the infamous Scope's Monkey Trial of 1925.

But was the "evidence" for global warming intentionally and illegally concocted? By their persistence in hiding their data we may think so, as far as Mann and Weaver are concerned; while Dr Ball's latest sensational book,''The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science;' detailing the Climategate shenanigans, is a 'must read' as to culpability. But only a full criminal investigation will be determinative of all that. The question now is, will the U.S. and Canadian governmental authorities have the stomach to delve deeper?

seem my post 668 https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-Change-Nobel-Prize-Winning-Scientist/page28

If someone did a graph like this in a stock prospectus, they would be jailed.

[/url]
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
More Countries Caught Manipulating Their Climate Data

Weather agencies in Australia, Paraguay and Switzerland may be manipulating temperature data to create a sharper warming trend than is present in the raw data — a practice that has come under scrutiny in recent months.

Most recently, Dr. H. Sterling Burnett with the Heartland Institute detailed how the Swiss Meteorological Service adjusted its climate data “to show greater warming than actually measured by its temperature instruments.”


In his latest article, Sterling wrote that Switzerland’s weather bureau adjusted its raw temperature data so that “the temperatures reported were consistently higher than those actually recorded.” For example, the cities of Sion and Zurich saw “a doubling of the temperature trend” after such adjustments were made.

But even with the data tampering, Sterling noted that “there has been an 18-year-pause in rising temperatures, even with data- tampering.”

“Even with fudged data, governments have been unable to hide the fact winters in Switzerland and in Central Europe have become colder over the past 20 years, defying predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists,” according to Sterling.

The Swiss affair, however, is not the first instance of data “homogenization” catalogued by scientists and researchers who are skeptical of man-made global warming. In January, skeptic blogger Paul Homewood documented how NASA has “homogenized” temperature data across Paraguay to create a warming trend that doesn’t exist in the raw data.

Homewood found that all three operational rural thermometers in Paraguay had been adjusted by NASA to show a warming trend where one did not exist before. Homewood also found that urban thermometers in Paraguay had similarly been adjusted by NASA.

“[NASA is] supposed to make a ‘homogenisation adjustment,’ to allow for [urban heat island (UHI)] bias,” Homewood wrote. “The sort of thing you would expect to see at Asuncion Airport, Paraguay’s main gateway, handling over 800,000 passengers a year.”

“However, far from increasing historic temperatures to allow for UHI, [NASA] has done the opposite and decreased temperatures prior to 1972 by 0.4C,” Homewood added.


Before that, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABM) was forced to admit it adjusts temperatures recorded at all weather stations across the country. Aussie journalists had been critical of ABM for being secretive about its data adjustments.

“Almost all the alterations resulted in higher temperatures being reported for the present and lower numbers for the past–with the higher numbers being used to demonstrate a historical warming trend–than the numbers that were actually recorded,” wrote Sterling.

“Downward homogenizations in recent years were rare. In some areas, downward temperature trends measured over time showed a significantly increased temperature trend after homogenization,” he added. “The difference between actually measured temperatures and homogenized temperatures topped 4 degrees Celsius over certain periods at some measuring stations.”

Global warming skeptics have increasingly become critical of adjustments to raw temperature data made by government climate agencies. Such adjustments seem to overwhelmingly show a massive warming trend not present in the raw data.

Such adjusted data has been used by climate scientists and environmental activists to claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record. Adjusted data also shows that 13 of the warmest years on record have occurred since 2000.

NOAA and other climate agencies have defended such adjustments to the temperature record, arguing they are necessary to correct for “biases” that distort the reality of the Earth’s climate.

NOAA scientists increase or decrease temperatures to correct for things like changes in the locations of thermometers (some that were once in rural areas are now in the suburbs or even in cities). Scientists have also had to correct for a drastic change in the time of day temperatures were recorded (for whatever reason, past temperatures were recorded in the afternoon, but are now often collected in the morning).

Other adjustments have been made to the data to correct for such “biases,” but global warming skeptics question if the scope of the data adjustments are justifiable.

The U.K.’s Global Warming Policy Foundation has created a panel of skeptical scientists from around the world who will evaluate temperature adjustments to find out if they are scientifically justified.

“Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising,” Terence Kealey, former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, said in a statement.

“While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from – or less certain than – has been suggested,” said Kealey, who has been appointed chairman of the foundation’s investigative task force. “We hope to perform a valuable public service by getting everything out into the open.”


Read more at http://barbwire.com/2015/05/19/more-countries-caught-manipulating-their-climate-data/

more links http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/19/more-countries-caught-manipulating-their-climate-data/
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,494
6,716
113
Try reading post 686 from Sunday:
...
Is that the day that you posted that a clear majority of scientists consider AGW the dominant cause of global warming?

And even if you want to use 66% or 52%, they are still a heck of a lot more significant that the 10 and 15% who you think support your view.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,494
6,716
113
You asserted that I said the "scientific community" is cooking the books.

I say you're lying. Produce the quote or concede that you're lying.
As G said, spin.

NOAA, NASA, and the IPCC are the major players in the study of climate. You accused them of cooking the books (though you also had the gall to say they supported your views).
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,369
8,039
113
Room 112
As G said, spin.

NOAA, NASA, and the IPCC are the major players in the study of climate. You accused them of cooking the books (though you also had the gall to say they supported your views).
all 3 are political,not scientific, organizations. kinda proves our point doesn't it?
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,369
8,039
113
Room 112
I am concerned about continual changes of .02 degrees. I also have a clue about how sensitive ecosystems can be to change.

Usain Bolt just won the 100 m gold by 0.01 s. Maybe you think they should all share the gold because it was a small difference.
Comparing apples to oranges, c'mon man you can't be that foolish.
 

bishop

Banned
Nov 26, 2002
1,800
0
36
Is that the day that you posted that a clear majority of scientists consider AGW the dominant cause of global warming?

And even if you want to use 66% or 52%, they are still a heck of a lot more significant that the 10 and 15% who you think support your view.
Even if you had 97%, that is worth sh*tall. Do you think Peter Higgs got his Nobel because he was 97% accurate or 97% of physicists thought he was correct? No, his theory matched results down to 10 decimal places, that is why after 40 years he finally got his Nobel.

If you were to poll physicists and ask them do they think that black holes radiate energy, 99.999% of them will say yes, do you think hawking will get a nobel because the vast majority of physicists think he is right? No, he will only get his nobel when experimental results match his predictions down to 10 decimal places.

So even if you had 97% which you do not, it is worth nothing.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Is that the day that you posted that a clear majority of scientists consider AGW the dominant cause of global warming?

And even if you want to use 66% or 52%, they are still a heck of a lot more significant that the 10 and 15% who you think support your view.
No one disputes that a majority of the climate researchers -- particularly the publicly funded ones -- supports AGW. But the claims of a consensus are total B.S.

By the way, it's a majority of climate researchers, not "a clear majority of scientists." You really do need to get over this habit of taking other people's words and data and misrepresenting their meaning.

 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
NOAA, NASA, and the IPCC are the major players in the study of climate. You accused them of cooking the books (though you also had the gall to say they supported your views).
Hmm. So you thought you'd roll in the IPCC to try to make your numbers look bigger.

Actually, I said the NOAA cooked the books for the sea surface temperature data now being used by the NOAA and NASA. I said nothing about the IPCC.

Furthermore, there are all kinds of major players in climate research beyond the NOAA and NASA: The IPCC, the University of East Anglia, the Met Office, Berkeley Earth Sciences, the University of Hamburg, the Japan Meteorological Agency, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, etc. In fact, representatives for the IPCC and the Met Office were among those who disputed the NOAA's conclusions.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/201...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The NOAA is not the designated voice for the "climate community" and certainly not the designated voice for the "scientific community."

You were lying.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
PornAddict:

That was an interesting article about Michael Mann's lawsuits, although I believe its assertion that the Tim Ball case had been dismissed was incorrect.

I haven't followed the Tim Ball case. But I knew enough about Mann to predict (years ago, on this website) that he wouldn't follow through with his case against Mark Steyn once it got to the discovery stage.

That's what makes the countersuit against Mann so interesting. Mann might have to submit to disclosure regardless of how he feels about it.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,494
6,716
113
all 3 are political,not scientific, organizations. kinda proves our point doesn't it?
It proves that you can't argue the science so instead resort to smears. It's funny that you reject these organizations but buy books from a youtube huckster.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,494
6,716
113
...
By the way, it's a majority of climate researchers, not "a clear majority of scientists." ...
66% sure seems like a clear majority to me, especially when compared to the 10% who you listen to.


p.s. Your veiled accusation about publicly funded researchers is just more evidence of your scientific rejectionism.
 
Toronto Escorts