It shows that I am not cherry picking for sure. I was the one who TOLD YOU that one of my proofs for the polar bear population increase was a right leaning site.

If you insist the third article is true and is science than why not the other three articles since there was a 3-1 advantage to the FRAUD.

Information from Al Gore (makes $100,000,000 on Global Warming Climate), tenured professors who can’t compete in the private sector but get millions in grants, equals truth to you and skeptics (including scientists who see flaws in methodology, pure fraud, and question the results) who disagrees and mention that there may be a ulterior motive (money and power) are “flat earthers”, or their views or data and within the standard deviation or too extreme.

Why wouldn’t Al Gore stating that NYC will be 10ft under water in 20 years be extreme? But the fact that the earth cooled in 2007 and 2008 is extreme and should not be used in calculations?

However, to settle your mind on these 4 links about one rather old climate denial myth…

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html

Once again, not that you will accept this kind of reality given it doesn’t relate to your own. Ironic really given your accusations.

Fraud it was Lee and Dunc.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1010630/posts

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3021

http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2009/09/hockey-stick-fraud.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html

That’s just 4

Gotta work now but will be back. Everyone take care.

Do you mean changes to our climate in general, ie including those in pre-industrial times, or the current climate change we are seeing?

I see no evidence of fraud, the example you pointed out above regarding the “fudge factor” is nothing more than a bit of code. Can you show me where it was used? If it was a final version? If the data used in it was final or temporary? Can you explain to me how the adjustment data was arrived at and what its purpose was? Was it to “fudge” temperatures or was it to “fudge” tree ring data for example? Call this, if you like, accepting fraud because it agrees with my opinion…I’ll call it what it is, not assuming I know all the facts just because I see a few words that whet my whistle.

If you want to show any *real* proof of fraud then go right ahead, shouting interesting words loudly isn’t quite the same as “absolute evidence of fraud!!!” though.

“Funny, how you did not hear about these guys who predicted warming in the 1970s.”

The 70s was about CFCs and cooling through them, that was the big threat of the time until it was, by the end of the 80s, solved by controlling the output of CFC emissions. Sound familiar? Also, just because a pope shits in the woods doesn’t mean you hear the plop.

I am familiar with standard deviation- I have an engineering degree.

Funny, how you did not hear about these guys who predicted warming in the 1970s. I wonder about your soource. Even if that is a fact….the same thing is going on now with people who indicate Climate Change is not primarily based on CO2…their mikes are cut, they are “flat earthers” and are drowned out by BBC, CBC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, etc.

It is extreme, but it’s also a trend that has survived multiple cooling cycles of the sun, multiple warming and cooling cycles through el nino/la nina, all “extremes” of weather and more. The science shows that this is a trend occurring for only a few select reasons, and one of the main reasons is CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The trend has been going on long enough, through enough variation, to show us that this is not a “blip” but a trend.

Our cold weather (or even a SUPER hot and dry summer) is a blip, some 100 years of warming trend is something else.

“I still have not heard any adult common sense explanation for the email fraud scandal ”

As I said, check out the other articles here and videos linked to. Unfortunately the “common sense” is generally lacked by those reading in to “hiding the decline” or “tricks” and thinking they’re something they’re not with no basis.

Thirty years ago the 1000 years of data said we were cooling

Not true.

“A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.”

As for the definition of “extreme” or “unusual”, there are perfectly standard statistical methods for assessing such things. Does the phrase “standard deviation” mean anything to you?

Again though…they are extreme only because you want them to be. Now its 1000 years, before you stated 40 years…and I still have not heard any adult common sense explanation for the email fraud scandal other than the BBC, CBC, NBC, MS-NBC, CBS, and ABC said they checked it out and everything is just fine.

Thirty years ago the 1000 years of data said we were cooling and now the data says we are warming? According to your reasoning maybe the last thirty years are extreme, only 3% of the entire 1000 year data?

If you can’t see how moronic your stance is on “evidence” and “fraud” in this regard then you can’t be helped. Nor, I imagine, do you care to be.

I speak about the fraud and you give me a dictionary to look up extreme. AND….you are contribute to a SOCIALIST website..

What next is one of you guys gonna call me a flat earther…oops you already went there.

Let’s look at Extreme…

1. Most remote in any direction; outermost or farthest: the extreme edge of the field.
2. Being in or attaining the greatest or highest degree; very intense: extreme pleasure; extreme pain.
3. Extending far beyond the norm: an extreme conservative. See Synonyms at excessive.
4. Of the greatest severity; drastic: took extreme measures to conserve fuel.

These events are extreme because they fit the definition of extreme, no other agenda. Can we have a whip around to buy this man a dictionary please?

Also your explanation of the email FRAUDs are week but not expected as again FRAUD is FRAUD and there is no excuse for it.

Right, so you really are just a troll then?

“One is a conservative propaganda page. The other is POLAR BEAR INTERNATIONAL.”

Lol… one is citing scientific research from an international research group, the other is a conservative propaganda outlet.

The mission of the Media Research Center, “America’s Media Watchdog,” is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America’s conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed

“Great, then let’s keep taking data rather than turn the world upside down. Maybe this data is still young and untested and the future science will even clearly show that Climate Change is cyclical based more on solar activity rather than human uses of carbon.”

Except the temperatures have risen despite solar cycles having been and gone. You know a solar cycle is a fairly short term event in the grand scheme of things? 10-12 years is the average, yet the data harvested by scientists is for over 1000 years. Climate change is based on solar activity, but only for the last 2 or 3 cycles out of 100?

Like most of your stance, the argument you put forward here is based on anomalies, extraordinary and extreme singular events or data, and a misunderstanding of the science and scientific techniques.

Thanks for the response. Please see below. I tried to red the font but that formatting was unavailable on a socialist website.

“1. Since communism/socialism has failed so miserably everywhere it has been tried is the “Global Warming” (Oops I’m sorry we call it “Climate Change” after Al Gore’s had a conference during record low temperatures in NY) just another bite at the apple.”

This isn’t really a “1? is it, not a question or inquisitive statement, it’s a proud diatribe to make it clear what your prejudices are straight away. You’re a right wing skeptic (I’m going to be generous) of climate change, and most of us aren’t. We’re not going to get anywhere treading that particular ground. Much easier to just show you where you’re wrong or lacking information…

Yes and No. I was born into a liberal family and was extremely open to the man made aspects of “Global Warming” concept. We fell for acid rain before. “Global Warming” was introduced to us in my family and school as a scientific consensus and I even considered a career in environmental engineering. I am indeed very skeptical now (I became an adult) when others found faulty data collection, faulty reasoning SOME scientists, the response from the Climate Change community to anyone that offers any dissention, the $$ that people like Al Gore (considered someone who is prone to exaggeration by rational people) make based on theory, the pathetic response to the email controversy, the cooling of the entire Earth in 2007, and 2008, etc. etc.

“2. The Kyoto Treaty went to the US Senate for ratification- 97-0 against. Such a disaster that even the out-of-touch bureaucrats don’t want it.”

The interests of a single country and how a global agreement on tackling climate change should be taken by that single country is nothing but a commentary on how that single country wishes to treat an issue…not a reflection on the issue. Politicians are politicians, scientists are scientists.

Out of touch, never had an honest or private sector job liberals, even the same ones that recently voted in our “Cap and Trade” law voted no. 97-0, 97-0, 97-0.

“3. Since CO2 has increased the last few years, why hasn’t the temperature? The temperature was lower in 2007 and 2008 and we are having the coldest winter in several years this year?”

*We* are having the coldest winter, it doesn’t mean the WORLD is having the coldest winter. Welcome to the difference between weather and climate. Also solar activity decline and La Nina…which you’d know if you read anything even remotely objective about global temperature.

No climate is whatever you want it to be….as long as it fits your narrow views. All we hear is that CO2 is up CO2 is up and well yes it is and we do control that. But where is the temperature increase in the last few years? Now you reference solar activity….um we can’t control that. The world having cooler temperatures two years in a row does mean that the Earth is cooler two years in a row.
“4. Care to comment on the polar bear population increase?”

Care to comment on why you think a cherry picked population comparison is relevant? Of a species hunted in to small numbers before being put under conservation techniques specifically to increase its population? All meaningful studies in to population and behaviour show the effect of the ice caps melting, and that is smaller hunting periods, harder lifestyles and declining population.
At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision—this is a change from five that were declining in 2005, five that were stable, and two that were increasing.

View the following:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/06/28/polar-bear-testimony-suppressed-due-inconvenient-truths
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/
One is a conservative propaganda page. The other is POLAR BEAR INTERNATIONAL.

“5. Europe’s utility costs have skyrocketed and unemployment is up due to your version of “Cap and Trade”, but emissions are even. Why? Shouldn’t they be down?”
What does this have to do about climate change? It’s politics and political failings and nothing more.

It just shows the silliness. The rest of the world continues to develop and Europe intentionally hurts itself. World CO2 is still up, but the temperatures are down.

“6. What guarantees are there that any money given to the third world dictators will go to “green” jobs and not in their pockets….the evidence with these lefties and righties is that they are mostly corrupt and line their pockets. They even left the Copenhagen talks when it was not evident they weren’t gonna get blank checks from industrial democracies.”

The likes of Copenhagen are political conferences, perhaps justified by it’s participants based on the science, but are ultimately about politics more than anything else. A separate argument can easily be had on the effectiveness of these global forums, and the practicality, but they have no bearing on the science.

Just shows that the bureaucratic nonsense and corruption involved in those who swear by “Global Warming” or I’m sorry “Climate Change”- the temperature went down 0.00000001 degree last week. From the celebrity crooks like Gore that take private planes and limos (nasty fossil fuel burners), to the corrupt dictators waiting for the Euros and dollars to further enslave their own people, to the politicians who achieve non-binding agreements with other crooks based on science that they themselves cannot understand.

You state political to science…you are on a socialist website.

“7. I still have not heard an adult “pro-Climate Change” argument for the corrupt email scandal?”

Then you haven’t looked hard enough. The arguments against those that blew the emails out of proportion and context have been visited several times on this site alone. Something tells me that you will simply not agree with the reality of how mundane this “scandal” was, however.

Nope. It may be mundane to you but it is not mundane to us. One of the crooks is on suspension and the guy from Penn State is remaining silent as he will not discuss this with anyone who won’t just take his word on its face without skepticism. These guys have stolen grant money based on fraud and even used the word “Fudge Factor” in their computer program. Mundane? BBC?

“8. During the 1970s, climate scientists were concerned about temperature drops and considered dropping coal dust on the poles. Since CO2 would have been higher in the 1970s than the 1960s, why was the temperature dropping?”
Why it was cooling for such a short period is irrelevant to the longer trends, and scientists in the 70s weren’t as concerned solely on cooling as you try to misrepresent.

Thankfully we don’t really take our lead from a historical point in science where data was still young and untested, while ignoring more than half of the timescale of climate change science that has occurred since then with even more information to colour the debate.

Great, then let’s keep taking data rather than turn the world upside down. Maybe this data is still young and untested and the future science will even clearly show that Climate Change is cyclical based more on solar activity rather than human uses of carbon.

This isn’t really a “1″ is it, not a question or inquisitive statement, it’s a proud diatribe to make it clear what your prejudices are straight away. You’re a right wing sceptic (I’m going to be generous) of climate change, and most of us aren’t. We’re not going to get anywhere treading that particular ground. Much easier to just show you where you’re wrong or lacking information…

“2. The Kyoto Treaty went to the US Senate for ratification- 97-0 against. Such a disaster that even the out-of-touch bureaucrats don’t want it.”

The interests of a single country and how a global agreement on tackling climate change should be taken by that single country is nothing but a commentary on how that single country wishes to treat an issue…not a reflection on the issue. Politicians are politicians, scientists are scientists.

“3. Since CO2 has increased the last few years, why hasn’t the temperature? The temperature was lower in 2007 and 2008 and we are having the coldest winter in several years this year?”

*We* are having the coldest winter, it doesn’t mean the WORLD is having the coldest winter. Welcome to the difference between weather and climate. Also solar activity decline and La Nina…which you’d know if you read anything even remotely objective about global temperature.

“4. Care to comment on the polar bear population increase?”

Care to comment on why you think a cherry picked population comparison is relevant? Of a species hunted in to small numbers before being put under conservation techniques specifically to increase it’s population? All meaningful studies in to population and behaviour show the effect of the ice caps melting, and that is smaller hunting periods, harder lifestyles and declining population.

At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision—this is a change from five that were declining in 2005, five that were stable, and two that were increasing.

“5. Europe’s utility costs have skyrocketed and unemployment is up due to your version of “Cap and Trade”, but emissions are even. Why? Shouldn’t they be down?”

What does this have to do about climate change? It’s politics and political failings and nothing more.

“6. What guarantees are there that any money given to the third world dictators will go to “green” jobs and not in their pockets….the evidence with these lefties and righties is that they are mostly corrupt and line their pockets. They even left the Copenhagen talks when it was not evident they weren’t gonna get blank checks from industrial democracies.”

The likes of Copenhagen are political conferences, perhaps justified by it’s participants based on the science, but are ultimately about politics more than anything else. A separate argument can easily be had on the effectiveness of these global forums, and the practicality, but they have no bearing on the science.

“7. I still have not heard an adult “pro-Climate Change” argument for the corrupt email scandal?”

Then you haven’t looked hard enough. The arguments against those that blew the emails out of proportion and context have been visited several times on this site alone. Something tells me that you will simply not agree with the reality of how mundane this “scandal” was, however.

“8. During the 1970s, climate scientists were concerned about temperature drops and considered dropping coal dust on the poles. Since CO2 would have been higher in the 1970s than the 1960s, why was the temperature dropping?”

Why it was cooling for such a short period is irrelevant to the longer trends, and scientists in the 70s weren’t as concerned solely on cooling as you try to misrepresent.

Thankfully we don’t really take our lead from a historical point in science where data was still young and untested, while ignoring more than half of the timescale of climate change science that has occurred since then with even more information to colour the debate.

1. Since communism/socialism has failed so miserably everywhere it has been tried is the “Global Warming” (Oops I’m sorry we call it “Climate Change” after Al Gore’s had a conference during record low temperatures in NY) just another bite at the apple.

2. The Kyoto Treaty went to the US Senate for ratification- 97-0 against. Such a disaster that even the out-of-touch bureaucrats don’t want it.

3. Since CO2 has increased the last few years, why hasn’t the temperature? The temperature was lower in 2007 and 2008 and we are having the coldest winter in several years this year?

4. Care to comment on the polar bear population increase?

5. Europe’s utility costs have skyrocketed and unemployment is up due to your version of “Cap and Trade”, but emissions are even. Why? Shouldn’t they be down?

6. What guarantees are there that any money given to the third world dictators will go to “green” jobs and not in their pockets….the evidence with these lefties and righties is that they are mostly corrupt and line their pockets. They even left the Copenhagen talks when it was not evident they weren’t gonna get blank checks from industrial democracies.

7. I still have not heard an adult “pro-Climate Change” argument for the corrupt email scandal?

8. During the 1970s, climate scientists were concerned about temperature drops and considered dropping coal dust on the poles. Since CO2 would have been higher in the 1970s than the 1960s, why was the temperature dropping?

Ok I gotta do some work but comrades please respond.

All of these have been natural trends & we are well inside the historic natural variations. Anybody who denies that is either a liar or a moron. Any politician or party which denies it is a wholly corrupt, illiberal, indeed fascist parassite who cannot ever be trusted to tell anything remotely close to the truth on any subject whatsoever.

I noter that over the last few days arvery single member of the eco-fascist movement who is somethimg other thanj lyinmg, thieving scum, has dissociated themselves from the other Neil’s lies.

onlineuniversalwork