World may not be warming, say scientists

[WHAMPOM]

Snow in Atlanta is clear proof of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Lack of snow in Atlanta is clear proof of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. That's how the system works.

And here I thought it was just local weather due to a wildly whipping jet stream!! Forgot about the rain in Vancouver?

 

[Munky]

fail

Then I'll explain it in simple language you can understand...

One ocean-levels paper gets retracted among another glaciers-melting paper getting retracted, among scientists caught fudging results, among colluding to hide raw data, among suppressing any dissent withing their ranks, among basing multiple IPCC reports on biased and unofficial sources, among the earth NOT warming for the last decade, among Algore flying private jets and owing multiple mansions, among pushing cap'n'trade which does absolutely nothing to clean up the environment... you just keep on dreaming if you think it's an isolated incident.

 

[sandorski]

Then I'll explain it in simple language you can understand...

One ocean-levels paper gets retracted among another glaciers-melting paper getting retracted, among scientists caught fudging results, among colluding to hide raw data, among suppressing any dissent withing their ranks, among basing multiple IPCC reports on biased and unofficial sources, among the earth NOT warming for the last decade, among Algore flying private jets and owing multiple mansions, among pushing cap'n'trade which does absolutely nothing to clean up the environment... you just keep on dreaming if you think it's an isolated incident.

Gaps fail.

 

[werepossum]

I have this picture of CAGW as the Black Knight, nothing but bloody stumps for arms and legs, screaming "I'm invincible!" This movement is no more; its bleedin' demised. Its proponents should have waited to demand the huge wealth transfers until after they had received the carbon limits, after the worst of the scandals had died down - and after the global recession had passed. The moment when you can almost taste the power is also when it's most likely to slip away from you.

 

[Corn]

fail

Wrong

 

[sandorski]

I have this picture of CAGW as the Black Knight, nothing but bloody stumps for arms and legs, screaming "I'm invincible!" This movement is no more; its bleedin' demised. Its proponents should have waited to demand the huge wealth transfers until after they had received the carbon limits, after the worst of the scandals had died down - and after the global recession had passed. The moment when you can almost taste the power is also when it's most likely to slip away from you.

lol, keep wishing

 

[Amused]

And it just gets deeper and deeper...

It's becoming clear that this has all been systematic fraud and fear mongering.

More and more the MMGW folks are looking like fanatical theists.

New Climate Agency Head Tried to Suppress Data, Critics Charge
By Ed Barnes
- FOXNews.com

Thomas Karl, the head of Obama's new Climate Change office has been criticized for trying to suppress contradictory scientific data on climate change.


Thomas Karl, the newly appointed head of the National Climatic Data Center.
The scientist who has been put in charge of the Commerce Department's new climate change office is coming under attack from both sides of the global warming debate over his handling of what they say is contradictory scientific data related to the subject.

Thomas Karl, 58, was appointed to oversee the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, an ambitious new office that will collect climate change data and disseminate it to businesses and communities.

According to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, the office will "help tackle head-on the challenges of mitigating and adapting to climate change. In the process, we'll discover new technologies, build new businesses and create new jobs."

Karl, who has played a pivotal role in key climate decisions over the past decade, has kept a low profile as director of National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) since 1998, and he has led all of the NOAA climate services since 2009. His name surfaced numerous times in leaked "climate-gate" e-mails from the University of East Anglia, but there was little in the e-mails that tied him to playing politics with climate data. Mostly, the e-mails show he was in the center of the politics of climate change decisions

According to a school biography published by Northern Illinois University, Karl shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and other leading scientists based on his work at the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and he was "one of the 10 most influential researchers of the 1990s who have formed or changed the course of research in a given area."

His appointment was hailed by both the Sierra Club and Duke Energy Company of North Carolina. Sierra Club President Carl Pope said, "As polluters and their allies continue to try to muddy the waters around climate science, the Climate Service will provide easy, direct access to the valuable scientific research undertaken by government scientists and others." And Duke Energy CEO Jin Rogers said the new office, under Karl, will "spark the consensus we need to move forward."

But Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist affiliated with the University of Colorado who has crossed horns with Karl in the past, says his appointment was a mistake. He accused Karl of suppressing data he submitted for the IPCC's most recent report on climate change and having a very narrow view of its causes.

The IPCC is charged with reviewing scientific data on climate change and providing policy makers and others with an assessment of current knowledge.

Pielke said he agrees that global warming is happening and that man plays a significant role in it, but he said there are many factors in addition to the release of carbon into the atmosphere that need to be studied to fully understand the phenomenon. He said he resigned from the IPCC in August 2005 because his data, and the work of numerous other scientists, were not included in its most recent report.

In his resignation letter, Pielke wrote that he had completed the assessment of current knowledge for his chapter of the report, when Karl abruptly took control of the final draft. He said the chapter he had nearly completed was then rewritten with a too-narrow focus.

One of the key areas of dispute, he said, was in describing "recent regional trends in surface and tropospheric temperatures," and the impact of land use on temperatures. It is the interpretation of this data on which the intellectual basis of the idea of global warming hangs.

In an interview, Pielke reiterated that Karl "has actively opposed views different from his own." And on his Web site last week, he said Karl's appointment "assures that policy makers will continue to receive an inappropriately narrow view of our actual knowledge with respect to climate science."

He said the people who run the agencies in charge of climate monitoring are too narrowly focused, and he worries that the creation of the new office "would give the same small group of people the chance to speak on the issue and exclude others" whose views might diverge from theirs.

Responding to the criticism, Karl told the Washington Post, "the literature doesn't show [Pielke's] ideas about the importance of land use are correct."

Calls to The Commerce Department and to Karl's office went unanswered.

The IPCC in recent weeks has come under severe criticism after e-mails, hacked from a prestigious climate center, revealed some of the political infighting that occurred as its assessments were being put together and called into question its impartiality.

Climate change skeptics, meanwhile, say Karl's appointment was unnecessary and pulls scarce resources from more pressing needs.

"The unconstitutional global warming office and its new Web site climate.gov would be charged with propagandizing Americans with eco-alarmism," wrote Alex Newman of the Liberty Sentinel of Gainesville, Fla.

On the popular skeptic site "Watts Up With That," Anthony Watts called the climate.gov site a "waste of more taxpayer money" and charged that it is nothing more than a "fast track press release service." He wrote that putting Karl in charge was an issue, because he had fabricated photos of "floods that didn't happen" in an earlier NOAA report.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010...suppress-data-critics-charge/?test=latestnews

 

[sandorski]

And it just gets deeper and deeper...



http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010...suppress-data-critics-charge/?test=latestnews

When grasping for straws, one often fails. Congrats.

There's nothing in that article other than a guy who feels slighted that his particular view has not been promoted. His view, btw, still supports both GW/CC and MMGW.

 

[Amused]

When grasping for straws, one often fails. Congrats.

There's nothing in that article other than a guy who feels slighted that his particular view has not been promoted. His view, btw, still supports both GW/CC and MMGW.

The failure is yours. You fail to see the pattern of fraud this entire subject has been based on. You dismiss every tree while never seeing the forest.

 

[sandorski]

The failure is yours. You fail to see the pattern of fraud this entire subject has been based on. You dismiss every tree while never seeing the forest.

You have a funny definition of Fraud. You point at a Tree and call it a Forest.

 

[woolfe9999]

You have a funny definition of Fraud. You point at a Tree and call it a Forest.

I admire your stamina. Arguing with people who assemble lists of isolated, pulled from the newsfeed/ether talking points, and draw Grand Conclusions from them, can get very tedious. Been there, done that with other so-called schools of thought. Very tiresome.

- wolf

 

[sandorski]

I admire your stamina. Arguing with people who assemble lists of isolated, pulled from the newsfeed/ether talking points, and draw Grand Conclusions from them, can get very tedious. Been there, done that with other so-called schools of thought. Very tiresome.

- wolf

Indeed

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You have a funny definition of Fraud. You point at a Tree and call it a Forest.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention lately...there are many trees and we keep finding more and more. Just how deep is this rabbit hole?

 

[werepossum]

You have a funny definition of Fraud. You point at a Tree and call it a Forest.

When one has pointed at a great number of trees, one begins to suspect it is indeed a forest. Unless of course there are religious or ideological reasons to deny forests . . .

 

[sandorski]

When one has pointed at a great number of trees, one begins to suspect it is indeed a forest. Unless of course there are religious or ideological reasons to deny forests . . .

Half your "Trees" are Strawmen. Sorry.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Half your "Trees" are Strawmen. Sorry.

There are pervasive problems in this field if you haven't noticed. This is what happens when science gets politicized to the extent it has. Now it's so screwed up that we need to back up and reaccess what we actually know and what we don't know. This is going to take a while to sort out.

The sceptics have done a great service to science...but I doubt most 'believers' feel that way.

 

[sandorski]

There are pervasive problems in this field if you haven't noticed. This is what happens when science gets politicized to the extent it has. Now it's so screwed up that we need to back up and reaccess what we actually know and what we don't know. This is going to take a while to sort out.

The sceptics have done a great service to science...but I doubt most 'believers' feel that way.

Someone retracting One Paper amongst many on the same subject simply is not a "pervasive problem". Sorry.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Someone retracting One Paper amongst many on the same subject simply is not a "pervasive problem". Sorry.

Wow. You actually think this all about one paper? Seriously.

 

[sandorski]

Wow. You actually think this all about one paper? Seriously.

All the other reasons given are pretty much on par with it. Which is why everyone puts it into the same pile to make their case seem more legit.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

All the other reasons given are pretty much on par with it. Which is why everyone puts it into the same pile to make their case seem more legit.

And just how big does the pile need to get before you can accept the fact that their some serious issues in the field?

 

[sandorski]

And just how big does the pile need to get before you can accept the fact that their some serious issues in the field?

First you need a legit problem, before you can discuss Pile.

 

[Jaskalas]

First you need a legit problem, before you can discuss Pile.

In religion only the word of god is legit. It's no wonder you see no pile.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

First you need a legit problem, before you can discuss Pile.

If Climategate and all the recent IPCC problems doesn't qualify...then exactly what do you consider to be a 'legit problem'?

 

[sandorski]

In religion only the word of god is legit. It's no wonder you see no pile.

Where's your legit problem? Those in glass houses should throw no stones.

 

[mattpegher]

Climatology is a science and thus must be held to the rigors of all science, that of review, scrutiny, transparency of data and objective analysis. What the current exposure does not do, is disprove the theory that human activity is leading to a significant impact of the balance of green house gases and thus alterations in planet ecosystems. What it does do is bring into question the validity of the scientific data presented sofar. More importantly it questions the urgency with which some have pressured for rectification and It has strongly damaged the process of evaluation of these remedies for efficacy, safety, and collateral impact on other aspects of ecology.