Do Denier Know that Conspiracies Are Not Proof No Matter How Many Fools Believe the Conspiracy is Real?

BB --

If you bothered to read the emails, you would see that the only thing they prove is that such a conspiracy is impossible. You are talking about people who will not be in the same room with each other and would love nothing more than the shot at discrediting each other.

Different institutions war with each other and individuals within institutions war with each other. And if deniers think it is so easy to get research money out of the NSF, NOAA, NASA, whatever to fund their conspiracy- try it. It's like trying to distribute 50 cookies among 100 kids at a dysfunctional daycare center for children that do not play well with others.

====

BB --

Reading and comprehending are not the same thing. The "trick" is neither a trick nor bad science, although they should have done it sooner - or not used the tree-ring data at all.

Least of all am I a follower. On the contrary, I am widely recognized as being pathologically demanding of my data and stubbornly conservative in my scientific conclusions.

I accepted the AGW hypothesis only after every legitimate objection had been discounted. Deniers, on the other hand, do not have a single argument or body of empirical data that challenges AGW. Everything offered here or anywhere is just junk, misrepresentation, irrelevant, or an outright lie that only a prejudiced political zealot or scientifically illiterate nitwit could believe.

If you wish to challenge that, I'll help get you started. Here are the locations of the data used by the climategate gang. All you have to do is analyze it yourself and present your results. According to you, it should be simple - since the real climate science is so obviously flawed and can be so easily falsified.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ghcn/...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html

http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02174_central_asi...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ftp-search.html

I find it amusing that you use the word "Denier". On any other subject people are allowed to express their views freely, yet when someone disagrees with the theory (and yes, it is just a theory) of AGW then they are branded deniers. This is science, not religion.

The Climategate emails revealed what alot of people already suspected, that we weren't being given the full facts about global warming. You won't hear much about in the mainstream media, but it is currently the hottest (no pun intended) topic on the internet, . If it were such a minor problem then it would be reasonable to expect the politicians and the pro-green lobby to say so and explain why but yet they have remained strangely quiet, and would rather the whole thing went away. A few emails might not seem like a big deal until you look closer. The scandal occured at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU). The CRU works closely with the UK Met Office and supplys data for it's mid and long range forecasts. One of the main factors in determing these forecast is CO2 levels. Based on this the Met Office announced in October that the winter of 2009/10 would be the warmest on record, safe to say they got that one slightly wrong!! Yet other forecasters in both the UK and N.America predicted the cold spell accurately, the only differece was that they based their forecast on the solar activity of the sun.

The CRU is also one of the main contributors of data to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the IPCC is the organisation that keeps governments worldwide informed on the latest science and information on global warming. It would be reasonable to expect that an organisation like the CRU, right at the centre of climate change science, to be completely open and honest but that's not the case. It has been revealed that consistent requests under the Freedom of Information Act to see it's raw temperature data have been denied for various reasons. The CRU recently had to admit that the original temperature data from the 80's had been "lost" and the the only raw data available was the CRU's own modified raw data! We don't know how the data has been modified and thereforel don't know how accurate it is. Still, it's no big deal, it only supplies data to the IPCC!!!! Still confident in your so called "Truth".

You also say this:

Are the deniers smart enough to know that conspiracies aren't the same as scientific

fact, facts that can be verified by others?

Would those be the same peer reviewed "facts" the IPCC uses? Like the recent one where they had to admit they made an "error" when they said that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. In fact the actual year 2335, only a difference of 300years. Oh, and peer reviewed? Er....no. It was based on a magazine article 10years ago and it was based on one scientists opinion on what might happen. It was picked up by the WWF in 2005 and then the IPCC included it in their 2007 report

And you wonder why there are "Deniers" in this world?

Someone is trying to prevent a panic. I suspect that the crew of the Titanic attempted to calm the fears of passengers by telling them there was no danger, even as behind the scenes they were checking out the lifeboats and frantically sending out an SOS signal. Of course nobody would believe the official 'government'...way to much politics are involved, so the end run around this problem is to let the right wing radio dummies do the work for them. Announce that more of the sun's energy was building up in our paper thin atmosphere than was escaping into outer space via infrared radiation and the dummies would of course leap onto the other side and announce it was all a hoax. Yet, to paraphrase Galileo, "Yet it heats'! All I know is that heat physics is clear on this subject...all incoming energy must be expelled or a meltdown will occur. That's why we have a radiator system on our fossil fuel driven, CO2 emitting cars and trucks. We also know at what point CO2 saturation in our atmosphere will retard enough infrared heat transmission to allow a rapid heat build up. It's 400ppm. As of December 7th 2009 CO2 stood at 386ppm and accumulates at the rate of 12 to 15 ppm per decade...do the math! As natural CO2, methane and water vapor generation is only a fraction of this buildup and burning fossil fuels is the greater part something is going on that can't logically be ignored. Some data may be wrong...some may be misinterpreted, some may be fudged and some may have been incorrectly gathered...true enough, but you can't say it isn't happening or explain it away by calling a hoax...you can dismiss the evidence all you want..."Yet it warms'!

Conspiracy? What conspracy? Oh you mean the fact that GW "scientists" have attempted to derail the peer-review process by not allowing any dissenting viewpoint to publish to the point of having editors fired? Thats already been shown to be true. Or the conspiracy that many of the AGW "scientists" are getting funding for agreeing with AGW? Also shown to be true. Or do you perhaps mean that raw data has been modified and that the end result of the modification was an increase in temps in the recent year and a decrease in the past years, just a coincidence? Do you possibly mean that scientists that are naturally biased toward believing AGW due to funding have been modifying raw data in an unblinded manner and thereby causing bias? Also a fact. Do you mean that AGWers have been able to say absurd figures like a 20 meter rise in sea level and polar bears are going extinct? Or do you mean that media has done little to nothing to point out these blatant lies? Also a fact.

All these "conspiracies" are being done entirely out in the open and can be seen by anyone who actually opens their eyes. Are you AGWers smart enough to open your eyes?

And if you define a scientific fact as "facts that can be verified by others" than the entire idea of AGW is not a scientific fact, but can only be considered a guess.

Noah's post is also revealing. He believes in his own conspiracy that we who disagree with AGW are actually part of a conspiracy to calm the populous. Funny. The phrase of "take the plank out of your own eye so that you may see better to help your neighbor take the speck out of his eye", comes to mind.

Skeptics dictionary. what the hell is that. Okay I am guilty of not checking the source of my info, but Chem Flunky asked for Natural cycles which is what she got, the graphs and where they came from was not important, the fact that, the sun has cycles and how that influences our climate was. I am not a conspiracy theorist believer.

We do understand that a conspiracy and a scientific fact are not the same thing. Unfortunately for you guys, we've looked at the "scientific facts" that the conspirators were hiding, massaging, manipulating...and we have found that there is no case for anthropogenic global warming, glacial retreat due to AGW, and out of control sea-level rise due to AGW.

Do AGW believers ever stop to ask why the conspirators in England, India, the US, and Australia where hiding, massaging, manipulating data?

I'm sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

The Climategate emails have provided plenty of evidence of criminal conspiracy. You might want to read a few of them before you post any more questions in this forum.

There are currently two key climate experts under investigation for scientific fraud because of the contents of the emails.

Gary F.... I commend you for your blind loyalty to the Warmer cause, but I think that you are among a few other Warmists in this forum who are in denial as to the severity of the Climategate emails and the Bad Science that they have exposed. And yes..... I have bothered to read the emails. Unlike the so-called climate experts who claim that there is such a thing as AGW, I do not rely on anecdotal or heresay evidence.

Gary F...... I see that you have not researched the 'state of the data' that your sources rely on. The main point serving to undermine the credibility of the AGW cause is that the surface data has been cherry-picked..... the surface stations have been allowed to fall into a state of deplorable disrepair. The result has been that there is now an artificially induced warming bias which serves to give the false impression of warming. NOAA claims to have made 'adjustments' for such but has been less than forthcoming insofar as their methodology and logic.

That is bad/fraudulent science!

Obviously, your "comprehension" statement appears to lack merit.

About the same number of AGW's who think a scientific consensus is proof. There have been many scientific consensus that have now been proven wrong.

Haven't you heard? They go back in time to cover up the evidence of the conspiracy! They're clever bastards, and all-powerful!

Left unexplained is how people can be so highly skilled maintaining such a conspiracy, and evidently incompetent in practically every other arena of their lives...

Yes, of course. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.