The Great Global Warming Swindle

Now I know some people will just say that this is due to mainstream scientists suppressing controversy and all that, but let me be succinct: That’s bull. Science thrives on dissenting ideas, it grows and learns from them. If there is actual evidence to support an idea, it gets published. I can point out copious examples in my own field of astronomy where papers get published about all manners of against-the-mainstream thinking, some of which come to conclusions that, in my opinion, are clearly wrong.

So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.

It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.

 

97 % of the worlds climatologists have been wrong about man made global warming.

The models failed.


Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.
Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

---
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By JONATHAN PETRE
UPDATED: 12:12 EST, 14 February 2010
Comments (976)
Share

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
There has been no global warming since 1995
Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz2KBXym3TE
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...y-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2KBX8CczX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Actually I've lost track of how many times you've been eviscerated by the facts on this topic.

 

So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.

 

Untrue. You've been called out on the 97% number you trot out and you can't supply a link or any reference that validates it. You made it up.

So, what is clear here is that you are completely rabid in your religious zeal for AGW and are perfectly comfortable being dishonest regarding your assertions.

Your credibility is hovering right around zero alongside RCG.

 

America's scientific community has been corrupted by the adoption of bad scientific method and the use of non-scientific propaganda. The peer-review process as inconsequential at best and misleading at worst, and misconduct among published scientists is increasing rapidly. Here is a very complete and brillant presentation on the issues with 'climate science'.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/stat...scienceunderassault-130202180030-phpapp01.pdf

 

Right and to me it's no longer a controversy that academicians can be
some real fucking idiots both individually and collectively.

You still never adequately explained why this subject is so dependent upon one's political perspective.

Passive Investing is almost universally accepted by finance schools to be superior to active mgmt. Yet I don't see nearly exclusive leftists touting this method and conservative's advocating active mgmt.

The fact that people are divided almost exclusively by something other than science on the subject automatically lets one know we are NOT talking about science per-se but the use of science for other purposes.

To a rational person on either side that lets you know the science cannot be good, convincing or both.

So of course you pick the low road of demonizing your opponents and calling them idiots

 

While I agree with your conclusion.

rcg's credibility can only be measured with negative infinity right on up there with the political great ones, used car salesmen and diet hucksters.

 

SO I guess you simply did not read the last several posts.

So you still are under the delusion that CO2 has not gone up 35% from man.

You deniers morons are a joke.

 

Out of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles over 11 years, 24 rejected global warming. Most of the "papers" claiming to refute human generated climate change are issued by think tanks and not published in the competitive peer-reviewed journals.
Moreover, those think tanks are often politically affiliate and - in many cases - were formerly associated with similar obstruction-denial campaigns that delayed consensus about the disease causing effects of tobacco... or earlier, the smog causing effects of auto pollution.