Yep, sometimes they just make sh*t up (climate change)

After releasing a paper a year ago challenging the temperature record in New Zealand, the Kiwis official weather center NIWA retracts their claim any warming occurred at all in the last century.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1012/S00054/climate-science-coalition-vindicated.htm

The relevant parts:

Previously NIWA held that New Zealand was experiencing a very significant .93C trend over the last 100 years. However, their data set was actually acquired, and when independent skeptics plotted the same data set it revealed a .06C trend - statistically insignificant. Almost all of the warming came from 'adjusting' the data.

They were sued, and in court NIWA retracted the claims the adjusted data was 'official' and are redoing their analysis. Previously it was official, and included in the IPCC reports.

The original controversy here:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the...-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html

Climate Change is a proven fraud. And that being the case I demand that all Laws and Regulations relating to it be stricken from the books immediately. And all monies paid in fines, fees, or grants related to same be reimbursed. And criminal fraud charges filed against the members of the scientific community who perpetrated this con. :smoking:

How about we just set all environmentalists on fire?

No that's letting the lying bastards off too easy.

Ahem.

Why can i never find the "Holy Consensus" pic when I need it?

Don't worry, Drake will be by shortly.

Ask and it shall be given you.

.

Can we stop having to buy those fucking twisty-flourescent-substitute light bulbs now?

^The ones filled with deadly poison.

And more fun with science! The Met Office, you know those nice folks that oversee Hadley CRU/East Anglia to provide one of the three major temperature charts (HadCRUt) and happens to include those fellas that were involved in the climategate emails, is in full retreat.

They announced in 2009 they will be redoing all of their temps for the last 160 years, and that won't be available until 2012.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece

They've also stopped seasonal weather forecasts, after getting the last 3 years in the UK so amazingly wrong.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...ir-icy-tentacles-round-the-doomed-met-office/

They did however get the UK taxpayers to pay for their $30 million supercomputer and a good chunk of their $190 million annual budget.

Oh, and why would they get it wrong? Perhaps confirmation bias coming down from on high:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/22/should-we-believe-anything-the-met-office-says.html

^Conflict of interest what's that? :smoking:

It's ok to lie about global warming if it's for the greater good!!!

It is strange how attitudes towards global warming have evolved over the last few years. I can remember, three or four years ago, when various left-leaning posters here on Wordforge basically made it clear that anyone who did not accept the evidence for anthropocentric global warming was hopelessly anti-scientific. But the astounding number of revelations over the last few years, from the scientific community and in the mainstream press, indicating that the science wasn't nearly as clear as they claimed, has caused even the most fervent global-warming believers to at least keep a lower profile. Personally, I still think what I thought all along: There isn't enough evidence to take a stand either way.

But I would be interested in hearing what people like Dan and Rick have to say now, when much of the scientific community is hedging its bets and "reevaluating the data." Is it still anti-scientific to have doubts about the issue?

A caveat - there are some extraordinarily good scientists involved in this, the basic data on GHGs seems to be pretty secure, however the forcings are what's really at question. There's also some highly unusual stuff going on with the Sun (yes, we may be heading toward a Dalton minimum, which means it's going to get cold as crud even if the alarmists are basically right) and that effects cosmic rays, which do appear to have at least some

However, they've also gotten a ton wrong, including Urban Heat Island, land usage changes, and forcings at the thermopause which are very important. As well as the basic question of energy transfer, convection and trapping is still not 100% satisfied, despite quite a few folks saying it is.

So I think the underlying science is right to a point, but there's still far too many unanswered questions. The politicization of science was completely ridiculous, and yes I blame that far more on the 'alarmists' than I do the skeptics. The deniers were marginalized long ago, to the point until only just recently being skeptical was considered being an extremist on the denier side.

We do need to pay more attention to the environment, and if we should diversify our energy sources. I heartily agree with Dan that we need to protect our oceans better.

But I have to admit I enjoy the boffins who cried heretic if anyone disagreed with their assumptions getting their brains bashed in. Cause that shit ain't science.

I'm more concerned about chemical polution of the air, water and land.
Manmade globle warming is nothing but a leftist myth.

Who doesn't believe that?

Al Gore, probably.

The mercury aside, I prefer the compact fluorescents. They're overall better bulbs over the incandescents. The only thing about them is that you can't roast your marshmallows with them.

I have the right to choose my method of illumination whether I want a curly cue bulb an incandescent Edison special or a gorram whale oil lamp, it's my business.

People like PGT still believe in the religion.

Unfortunately for CA, the majority still believe the myth and continue to destroy the states economy in honor of this belief.

Indeed.

So does the Obama Administration and their lackeys at the EPA

http://biggovernment.com/publius/20...vernment (Big Government)&utm_content=Twitter

Oh, and let's not let any states get uppity and defy the Holy Consensus either...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...patexas_24bus.ART.State.Edition1.4368de3.html

Kudos to Gov. Perry on this though

You are still not getting it. Carbon dioxide is a harmless gas and always has been. Its what makes plant life grow. Enough with the carbon shit, that is the basic premise of global warming.

I certainly haven't changed my view. While political priorities and public opinion may have altered, the science has not changed significantly.
Demiurge spends a lot of time posting about this and I haven't been convinced by anything he's posted.
I may go into this specific issue when I have a bit more time.

Do you really think that the people do not "get" what you're saying when you declare that carbon dioxide is harmless? Or that if they did, that it would make any difference whatsoever to this subject?

Whether you accept that it is happening or not, do you not accept that sufficiently increased greenhouse gases would cause warming? If not, then you deserve to be ignored.

I believe the difference lies in the point at which one reaches the threshold of "significant"

It does. ep of course, neglects to mention that there's any such threshold.