Man Based Global Warming....

The problem is that the AGW religious faithful are going to ignore this just like the 800 lb gorilla in the room and pull a Johnny Cochran to try and misdirect the publics attention. The truth be damned. But, for the people who were on the fence or still thinking about AGW with an open mind this will be too big to ignore and they should be running, not walking for the nearest AGW exit. This seachange provides me with some optimism that the truth will win out. I’m going to keep my fingers crossed and my powder dry.

 

Quite right. What Jones, Mann, Briffa, Hansen, et al have done is indefensible, but they will, of course, attempt to continue on as if nothing unusual has happened. The rearguard action has begun at RealClimate.

This will be the equivalent of Dan Rather continuing to tout the fraudulent documents (those he HOPED would CHANGE the outcome of a US presidential election) as accurate. He lost his job. I certainly hope these people lose theirs, but I'm not holding my breath. The network remains in place and the worshipers won't easily be disabused of their false belief.

The UN will sail on as though nothing has happened. They'll pass a few resolutions condemning Israel for human rights violations to pass the time and remove scrutiny from their baby, the IPCC.

 

This post is lengthy, so I will post the link and anyone who has an interest can see how these sceintists ignored the scientific method and the Freedom of Information Act. The former being an affront to science and the latter a breach of the law.

The people -vs- the CRU: Freedom of information, my okole? Watts Up With That?

And, no, believers, it is not published in a journal, rather a blog.

But, let me say it yet again, the truth is the truth no matter where you find it. (If you can recognize it when you see it.)

Special note to our educator troll - read it and come back to tell us, condescendingly, where it fails to indict shoddy science and the scientists who nurture it.

 

Before this goes on, could the contrarians post succint examples that prove data was falsified or that there was a conspiracy at the journal level?

As usual I don't think the links match the contrarians conclusions.

 

Precisely. The denialist/troll claims don't match what was actually stolen and claimed as "proof" of falsification.

 

Gee, I missed the part where they all got together to seek the truth -- must be in email #2,657

Whew! my computer is getting ready to explode with all these emails I'm getting - I may need to upgrade to windows 3.0

 

Let the denialist trolls have their 15 minutes in the sun. They know that we are going to get away with this socialist scam of one world government through carbon reduction treaties. They need to enjoy the moment while they can.

 

I love how you guys thinking calling people who don't believe in AGW trolls will make it seem like we don't have valid points. You guys are the ones who believe in things without proper cause. You probably lead relatively boring lives and want to attach yourself to something that you think sounds important.

Yeah. We're trolls. lol.

 

If you can't back up your claims with facts you are in effect trolling.

 

IMHO global warming is a myth for the following reasons:
avg. temps are generally taken in a populated area
in a populated area you have black top it holds heat from the sun.
you have buildings with heaters and a/c going creating heat.
you have cars runing creating heat. all of these thing are going to raise the avg. temp
also the earth gose throuh cycles warm cold dry wet, it always has and always will.
I think its common sence.

 

"I love how you guys thinking calling people who don't believe in AGW trolls will make it seem like we don't have valid points."

Because you don't have valid points, peer reviewed!


"IMHO global warming is a myth for the following reasons:
avg. temps are generally taken in a populated area
in a populated area you have black top it holds heat from the sun.
you have buildings with heaters and a/c going creating heat.
you have cars runing creating heat. all of these thing are going to raise the avg. temp
also the earth gose throuh cycles warm cold dry wet, it always has and always will.
I think its common sence."

Clearly you haven't ventured too far out of your zone! Do yourself a favor and do some reading outside of the Main stream media, and especially outside of talk radio/tv.

Icarus

 

prehaps you should do the same...

 

:spit: If that's common "sence" then I can't wait to hear the common sense explanations of atomic physics and quantum mechanics. opcorn: (There must be a lot of people with their AC cranked inside the Sun.) :flame:

This reminds me of the head of a town water dept. trying to explain why leaks were appearing everywhere after a nasty blizzard back when I was a mere freshman in engineering school. When it was still bitterly cold, there were a few leaks observed. When temperatures warmed above freezing there were leaks galore. Joe Bob didn't have a clue, but he needed to sound like a knowledgable authority, so he explained it on camera like this, "Well you see, when the weather warms, the cold gets driven deeper into the ground, and that freezes the pipes." No lie, he really said that!

Climatology, it's so easy even a caveman can do it! <queue the obligatory metrosexual soundtrack>

 

I know nothing about atomic physics and quantum mechanics and never claimed to. did I insult your opinion? no. I mearly stated mine.
I this not a disscusion board?

 

could you guy tell me why my theory would not cause an avg temp increase? all you did was read my post and call me stupid, back it up!!

 

Shawn how far along are you in your engineering degree and what specific engineering field do you plan on specializing in? Some of your posts in other threads have me curious.

 

Sure:

Discussion on the idea: RealClimate: The Surface Temperature Record and the Urban Heat Island

more...

"All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from

inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can
lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by differences in elevation, latitude, time of observation,
instrumentation, and nonstandard siting, a variety of adjustments were applied to the data. The resultant
data were the most thoroughly homogenized and the homogeneity adjustments were the most rigorously evaluated
and thoroughly documented of any large-scale UHI analysis to date. Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/
rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from
1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could
be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating
over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural
sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial​

regions."

Peterson, T.C., Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: No difference found, Journal of Climate, 16, 2941-2959, 2003. (hosted at the NCDC/NOAA site)

and...

"Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have
not biased the large-scale trends. ​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

A number of recent studies
indicate that effects of urbanisation and land use change on
the land-based temperature record are negligible (0.006ºC per
decade) as far as hemispheric- and continental-scale averages
are concerned because the very real but local effects are
avoided or accounted for in the data sets used. In any case, they
are not present in the SST component of the record. Increasing
evidence suggests that urban heat island effects extend to
changes in precipitation, clouds and DTR, with these detectable
as a ‘weekend effect’ owing to lower pollution and other effects​

during weekends."

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch03.pdf (page 3)

 

LOL Shawn is still in college? Shawn, when you have two college degrees, two papers published, and a M.D. then you can lecture me about science. Troll! (or are we calling you guys delusionists now?)

 

not gonna lie dont know what alot of those words mean I didnt go to college or even do that well in english but
sounds like alot of room for error, especaly human interferance
beause its people like you using this equipment and readings could "adjusted" atleast thats what I've been hearing lately
​

 

Did you miss the whole thing where all of your peer reviewed scientists were shown to be corrupt liars? Where's the answers to TimBikes questions about that? And the rest? Hello?

It seems all the AGW people can only call those of us who actually question the world around us trolls. Sorry we don't accept what is shoved down our throats. We actually use that mass of gray and white matter between our ears.