Scientific Fraud

[bcollins]

Here's a link to the UK's Hadley Centre site. I believe they have already compiled data sets, if you want to take a look.

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

[bcollins]

World Meteorological Organization: (Lots of links to other datasets)

World Meteorological Organization Homepage | WMO

University of Virginia Climatology Office: (another link page)

Online Climate Data Sources

RealClimate.org: (See the contributors page for the administrators and their credentials, also with links to multiple datasets)

RealClimate: Rossby waves and surface weather extremes

[bcollins]

NOAA admitted to the warming "plateau" in their 2012 State of the Climate Address and RSS the satellite data backed up this claim. People no doubt say "It's nothing, it means nothing unless this plateau lasts 20 years". This warming "stagnation" is a model buster....but I suppose that means nothing.

I'm not going to launch a satellite, I'm not going to start collecting my own data because I'm not a scientist and while I suppose your point could be to get me to admit as much but again the professional scientists have been wrong which is why NASA and NOAA have revisited their computer models and made adjustments. Are the adjustments better? Closer to the truth? Who is to say? Scientists made predictions for an ice age in the 1970's that has not come to fruition. They've predicted warming and the stagnation poked holes in that theory. Now it's a general cover all of climate change by using hand picked random weather events....I mean what's the difference between Y2K and The Mayan Calendar and these Climate scientist when they are fudging data and/or skewing data to achieve the hypothesis they want. No empirical data, no correlations, models that are consistently wrong....why trust that science? If you're looking for answers and you're constantly wrong then you're no different than someone not looking for answers or one who is wrong on purpose.

But go ahead and ridicule me

Nope. Not getting off that easy. You come on here and start bashing scientists and making claims that you read on other websites and choose to believe based on your expert understanding of science. Then you make specious claims with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up, again because you read it on a website somewhere. That's not good enough.

Your claim is this: There has been 0 warming since 1998.

I just gave you a wealth of places to search for data sets that are already compiled. It took me all of five minutes to find reputable sources who publish their data online free, with complete transparency, for all the world to see. That's how the scientific community works. Results must be independently verifiable. You now have access to every bit of the data used by both those who agree with your claim and those who rebut it.

You came on here bashing my profession. I'm calling you on it. Either you show me some kind of evidence - any kind of evidence - that is based on the data, or you quit acting like you're privy to information that the rest of the world isn't.

If you make a claim, you have to be able to support it. That's what science is. Your opinion is great and all, but it doesn't mean diddly squat without some concrete evidence. When you make a claim, you have to back it up. All you keep doing is blathering about how the science can't be trusted, that it's incorrect, that models don't work - with absolutely no understanding of how the science works.

"...when they are fudging data and/or skewing data to achieve the hypothesis they want. No empirical data, no correlations, models that are consistently wrong....why trust that science?"

You keep claiming they "fudged" data - that has already been shown to be a completely disingenuous claim, made by people with other agendas than pursuing the truth. You keep babbling about these things as if you understand them. You have already shown that you don't understand what a model is or does. I doubt you have any understanding of the relationship between data and correlation. I just provided you with multiple links to access all the empirical data you need.

I'm tired of your ignorant ranting. I'm asking you to do a very simple thing. Back up the claim you've made, using basic scientific techniques. This isn't graduate level work. Take the data and find a damn line of best fit. That's the most simple technique here - it's high school statistics. If you can't do that, find someone to help you do it. I would much rather you learn how to perform simple analysis for yourself - then maybe you can better discern the truth instead of relying on the interpretations of others.

[El Kabong]

The IPCC's Climate Science CHAIRMAN Dr. Rajendra Pachauri admitted to NO Global Warming for 17 years and said "People have to question these things and science only runs on questioning."


Sooooo listen to bcollins or IPCC Climate Science chairman


I guess you're right man. So about the 3.5% of CO2 humans produce?

[bcollins]

The IPCC's Climate Science CHAIRMAN Dr. Rajendra Pachauri admitted to NO Global Warming for 17 years and said "People have to question these things and science only runs on questioning."


Sooooo listen to bcollins or IPCC Climate Science chairman


I guess you're right man. So about the 3.5% of CO2 humans produce?

I see why you're on a boxing forum. I haven't seen this much ducking, dodging, and running since the last Laras fight. Still waiting for a simple, straight piece of evidence to support your claim.

The IPCC's Climate Science CHAIRMAN Dr. Rajendra Pachauri admitted to NO Global Warming for 17 years and said "People have to question these things and science only runs on questioning.

Interesting - a two-minute internet search debunks this statement. I believe once again, as usual, you get your information from sources with only one point of view. This statement seems to originate from an article by Graham Lloyd in The Australian. Unfortunately, you have to pay to see the full article, but apparently the actual statement is that global surface air temperatures have plateaued. That is not the same thing. Show me an audio or video link where Dr. Pachauri makes that claim - then I'll listen.

Either way, the claim is independently verifiable. That's the great thing about science. I will do my own analysis as soon as I get a chance (a little busy this weekend between writing code and family visiting from out of town and arguing with you) and present my own findings with evidence and methodology. More and more it seems like you are not inclined to do the same.

Do it yourself. Make the claim, then back it up. Until you do that, all you are doing is flapping your gums in the wind and looking more and more incapable of reason.

There has been 0 warming since 1998.

I'm not ridiculing you. I just want to see your evidence to support this claim. Period.

[El Kabong]

Dr. Pachauri said it doesn't disprove anthropogenic global warming but surface temperature remained level. He said it would have to continue for 30 years. Could you imagine just for 1 second what it would be like if the head of the IPCC said "There is ABSOLUTELY NO anthropogenic global warming"? Just imagine it....funding pulled, lawsuits, jobs destroyed (only this time in the science sector).... think scientists would allow that? Think the people involved in carbon offsets would take that lying down?

I'm pragmatic, so when IPCC's Kevin Trenberth says that he can't account for surface temperature remaining the same despite an increase in CO2 emissions for circa 17 years and then laments it as a "travesty" (his word) I don't believe it matters if he meant "Scientifically its a shame we can't account for where the extra energy/ heat is going" or "it's a shame there's no connection between CO2 emissions and warming" the take away is THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE DID NOT RISE for reasons anthropogenic or not....but whatever you are 100000000% right I'll wait for global warming apocalypse as predicted by your buddy Al Gore....we have 1 and 1/2 years to go.

[bcollins]

Dr. Pachauri said it doesn't disprove anthropogenic global warming but surface temperature remained level. He said it would have to continue for 30 years. Could you imagine just for 1 second what it would be like if the head of the IPCC said "There is ABSOLUTELY NO anthropogenic global warming"? Just imagine it....funding pulled, lawsuits, jobs destroyed (only this time in the science sector).... think scientists would allow that? Think the people involved in carbon offsets would take that lying down?

I'm pragmatic, so when IPCC's Kevin Trenberth says that he can't account for surface temperature remaining the same despite an increase in CO2 emissions for circa 17 years and then laments it as a "travesty" (his word) I don't believe it matters if he meant "Scientifically its a shame we can't account for where the extra energy/ heat is going" or "it's a shame there's no connection between CO2 emissions and warming" the take away is THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE DID NOT RISE for reasons anthropogenic or not....but whatever you are 100000000% right I'll wait for global warming apocalypse as predicted by your buddy Al Gore....we have 1 and 1/2 years to go.

Again dancing like a grease drop on a hot skillet. The claim is straightforward, the data already compiled - all that remains is your evidence to support your claim.

You are doing an awful lot of squirming around to avoid backing up your statement.

Claim: There has been 0 warming since 1998.

Argument in support of claim:

[Andre]

The IPCC's Climate Science CHAIRMAN Dr. Rajendra Pachauri admitted to NO Global Warming for 17 years and said "People have to question these things and science only runs on questioning."


Sooooo listen to bcollins or IPCC Climate Science chairman


I guess you're right man. So about the 3.5% of CO2 humans produce?

Well this cool .

What was he going off mate? Surly someone questioned him on it and he came up with real figures? I mean its some claim,so he would of backed it yeah?