The Warmergate Scandal

[Ame®icano]

Article from May 2009. Nobody paid any attention to it then...

What if global-warming fears are overblown?

 

[Sinatra]

Article from May 2009. Nobody paid any attention to it then...

What if global-warming fears are overblown?

Such articles/opinions have been numerous and growing in numbers in more recent years - but they are actively ignored/trampled down/dismissed by the mainstream media and on-the-dole science community.

The very same process is happening now regarding these leaked emails.

With trillions of dollars at stake, there will be a collective and very aggressive push to just "forget" any of those emails existed...

 

[concept]

WOW....

TBR.cc: BREAKING: NZ’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking
BREAKING: NZ’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking

The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre.

Not looking good for the cult..

I am not surprised one bit. And the apologists will continue to bleat away.

 

[concept]

Peer reviewed, my ass.

 

[eots]

but this would be a global conspiracy that and would of required a real control of media and the free dissemination of information and everyone knows that could never happen...so we can rest assured that there is no such plan to implode the economy...or lead us into wars of conquest under false pretenses

 

[concept]

but this would be a global conspiracy that and would of required a real control of media and the free dissemination of information and everyone knows that could never happen...and we can rest assured that there is no such plan to implode the economy...or lead us into wars of conquest under false pretenses

Not bad, but you lose the crowd when you hit the whole conquest schtick.

 

[Oddball]

Peer reviewed, my ass.

Wrong-o.

Like I just said in another thread, Galileo failed "peer review" too.

 

[concept]

Peer reviewed, my ass.

Wrong-o.

Like I just said in another thread, Galileo failed "peer review" too.

What do you mean?

 

[Oddball]

You have to tell the peers what they believe, irregardless of the verifiable facts, in order to get the good review on your stats.

Otherwise, you're a "heretic".

 

[Annie]

Article from May 2009. Nobody paid any attention to it then...

What if global-warming fears are overblown?

Such articles/opinions have been numerous and growing in numbers in more recent years - but they are actively ignored/trampled down/dismissed by the mainstream media and on-the-dole science community.

The very same process is happening now regarding these leaked emails.

With trillions of dollars at stake, there will be a collective and very aggressive push to just "forget" any of those emails existed...

Now we know why it was so difficult, if not impossible to find such that were 'peer-reviewed' as 'top scientists' well funded by UK, US governments through grants, were intimidating the editorial selections at journals that would do so. Then through 'corrupted online communities' where it seems some of these scientists were administrators, they chose what 'open debate' would be allowed.

It's the 'Barry Madoff' of the science world. There have already been billions of dollars spent in response to this faked data, now Obama and others are going to Copenhagen to push for drastic reductions, without really sufficient data to back it up.

Does this 'settle' anything? No. It does indicate that the information is just not there to make massive changes until there is data that fits the models or models revised that reflect the data.

 

[JW Frogen]

Like I just said in another thread, Galileo failed "peer review" too.

When ever I make love to a woman and then she asks "do you love me?" and I say "no" and she gets angry and says "you are an asshole"; I always use the Galileo reply, "still, it moves."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Libruls love science like Dracula loves the sunrise

 

[Ame®icano]

Many of our readers will no doubt be aware of the long-standing dispute between Steve McIntyre and members of the climate science community whose data McIntyre is keen to get hold of.

For those of you less familiar with the story, here’s some background. McIntyre, who runs the Climate Audit blog, is best known for questioning the validity of the statistical analyses used to create the ‘hockey stick’ graph. The ‘hockey stick’ is the graph that illustrates the past 1000 years of climate based on palaeo proxy data and was published by Penn state climatologist Michael Mann and co-authors in Nature back in 1998.

McIntyre versus Jones: climate data row escalates

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it? - Phil Jones, developer of the UN's IPCC temperature history, 2005

Dangerous Deception?

The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.

We've lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests

 

[The T]

You have to tell the peers what they believe, irregardless of the verifiable facts, in order to get the good review on your stats.

Otherwise, you're a "heretic".

...And they must destroy you...

 

[The T]

Peer reviewed, my ass.

Wrong-o.

Like I just said in another thread, Galileo failed "peer review" too.

Yep. Back then it was an esteemed club called "The FLAT EARTHERS"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Many of our readers will no doubt be aware of the long-standing dispute between Steve McIntyre and members of the climate science community whose data McIntyre is keen to get hold of.

For those of you less familiar with the story, here’s some background. McIntyre, who runs the Climate Audit blog, is best known for questioning the validity of the statistical analyses used to create the ‘hockey stick’ graph. The ‘hockey stick’ is the graph that illustrates the past 1000 years of climate based on palaeo proxy data and was published by Penn state climatologist Michael Mann and co-authors in Nature back in 1998.

McIntyre versus Jones: climate data row escalates

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it? - Phil Jones, developer of the UN's IPCC temperature history, 2005

Dangerous Deception?

The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.

We've lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests

The Dog Ate my Gullible Warming Homework.

Yeah, that's real science

 

[Midnight Marauder]

but this would be a global conspiracy that and would of required a real control of media and the free dissemination of information and everyone knows that could never happen...so we can rest assured that there is no such plan to implode the economy...or lead us into wars of conquest under false pretenses

It's not a conspiracy, it's group think. For the most part you have only a dozen or so bad actors, the rest are just lemmings, or are dismissed as heretics.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Have Libruls denounced their false Global Warming Religion?

 

[Sinatra]

Article from May 2009. Nobody paid any attention to it then...

What if global-warming fears are overblown?

Such articles/opinions have been numerous and growing in numbers in more recent years - but they are actively ignored/trampled down/dismissed by the mainstream media and on-the-dole science community.

The very same process is happening now regarding these leaked emails.

With trillions of dollars at stake, there will be a collective and very aggressive push to just "forget" any of those emails existed...

Now we know why it was so difficult, if not impossible to find such that were 'peer-reviewed' as 'top scientists' well funded by UK, US governments through grants, were intimidating the editorial selections at journals that would do so. Then through 'corrupted online communities' where it seems some of these scientists were administrators, they chose what 'open debate' would be allowed.

It's the 'Barry Madoff' of the science world. There have already been billions of dollars spent in response to this faked data, now Obama and others are going to Copenhagen to push for drastic reductions, without really sufficient data to back it up.

Does this 'settle' anything? No. It does indicate that the information is just not there to make massive changes until there is data that fits the models or models revised that reflect the data.

And the President of the World - Obama, is working in tandem with the global warming industrial machine.

His playbook is to communicate continual crisis - the "crisis" in healthcare, and the "crisis" in global warming. These fabricated crisis need far reaching and drastic action by the federal government - ie, great expansion of power, and further centralizing of the governmental order.

The most pressing crisis in America at this time is the Obama White House and the Democrat controlled Congress...

 

[Old Rocks]

but this would be a global conspiracy that and would of required a real control of media and the free dissemination of information and everyone knows that could never happen...so we can rest assured that there is no such plan to implode the economy...or lead us into wars of conquest under false pretenses

It's not a conspiracy, it's group think. For the most part you have only a dozen or so bad actors, the rest are just lemmings, or are dismissed as heretics.

Lemming is what you are, old boy. Just mindlessly repeating talking points and never, never actually researching the data.