Do climate scientists cherry pick and torture data?

Some of the data that AGW/ACC promoters use, is false and corrupted data presented to be facts.

Yahoo answers to AGW

If you want to know to know the intent behind AGW/ACC, read the entire answer, and read what they are saying in their own words quoted, so there can be no misunderstandings of their actual intent.

Actually, the whole reason AGW/ACC exists at all, is to get countries to sign the Copenhagen Treaty (like what the AGW/ACC promoters want), to give the UN COP absolute control over the US economy and society (in their own words below). They have drafted a 181 page document outlining that they will have absolute authority unquestioned and unaccountable to no one but themselves (in their own words).

These are a few statements that are legally binding for the countries that surrender their rights to the UN COP. Segments of the expose are shown below, and an expanded expose is at:

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/PDFs/U...

(though not a full list of their demands and aspirations)

(the COP is Conference of Parties, an established organization by the UN for a one world government, and "Convention" is the countries that surrender to the COP through the treaty.)

Page 39, #32

"Funds will be under the control of the COP as the supreme authority of the Convention."

The COP will have unconditional, unrestricted power over the economy and society. Why is this stated if it is all about science, and nothing to do with a one world government and absolute global rule???

Page 18, #36

"..adoption and carrying out of public policies, as the prevailing instrument, to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate, in order to assure the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention."

Market rules and dynamics subordinate???? This IS what has caused the current global economic meltdown - Market rules and dynamics subordinate.

Page 7, #3

"a major obstacle to efforts to promote [sustainable] economic and social development [and to [reduce] poverty] [eradication] [promote poverty aliviation,] [which are the first and overriding priorities of all developing countries]."

If it about AGW, why is poverty eradication the primary and overriding priority????

Page 18, #38 (a)

" The government will be ruled by the COP"

Does the US want a foreign dictator to have absolute rule over society and the economy???

Page 29, (q)

"Any lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone or scale down action on adaptation];"

It is suppose to be about irrefutable science. Why would this be stated if there is any lack of certainty? - because it is all about a lack of science certainty for the claim of Global Warming.

Page 78, #4

"economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities"

Poverty eradication again?? Stated many times. Isn't this issue about saving the planet??

Page 87, #77

"A separate pool of funding to finance national coordinating bodies through a direct line item in the secretariat’s budget shall be established. Such support shall not be subject to measurement, reporting and verification."

Poverty eradication is named numerous times. The COP will have absolute and unconditional authority, and billions of US dollars will be extorted to fund their pet projects and no one will know where the billions will go - i.e. Page 87, #77, second sentence - "Such support shall not be subject to measurement, reporting and verification."

Check out this publication of exposing only a few segments and statements shown in full so there can be no misunderstanding of their intended objectives in the statements and what the sections translate to mean.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/PDFs/U...

The full 181 page document is at:

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/i...

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10...

Science and AGW/ACC has nothing to do with the issue. By the way, by 1933 the world was to be in turmoil caused by AGW/ACC according to publications in 1922 -

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-pr...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarmi...

Is it really about AGW/ACC, or is AGW/ACC an invented issue as a means to an end as they have wanted for the last hundred years????? Giving absolute rule to dictators will be the result of signing the Copenhagen Treaty, or whatever name they give it at the time.

No.

Foaming at the mouth over some innocent e-mails that have been proven over and over again to be anything but proof of a conspiracy to manipulate the evidence for AGW won't get you anywhere but tossed into the same group as the rest of the foil-hat wearing crowd.

Sometimes you make sense and other times you are way off the deep-end...

_

<<Do climate scientists cherry pick and torture data?>>

It is impossible to tell from your cherry-picked quote.

<<Does this look like an objective scientific approach at analyzing data?>>

Impossible to tell from your cherry-picked quote. Data is missing.

<<Here is an interesting post which describes what it means to choose different starting data points: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5107%3E%3E

And then you link to a blog post by William M Briggs, the same Briggs who back in 2009 after the release of the first batch of hacked emails wrote (over at Realclimate):

"I agree with much of the sentiment. As I said this morning:

I often write emails to pals of mine that are in shorthand, that take many things for granted, that begin with understood knowledge, and that if they were read out of context could be construed as damning.

It’s easy to do produce indictments. It’s as simple as adding “in bed” to the end of Chinese fortune cookies. “You will have great success in the future” suddenly takes on an entirely new meaning for somebody intent on discovering an x-rated conspiracy among fortune cookie writers.

—–

Of course, it’s a separate question whether GCMs have skill, and there is some insight to be gained into that." (1)

If you want to ask a 'question' regarding William M Briggs' latest blog post, fine. But that is not your intent. You once again want to imply Phil Jones is committing fraud by cherry-picking a single mail out of a longer email exchange. (2) Even when reading the (allegedly) full email exchange, it is hard if not impossible to know what exactly they are talking about.

How about you, for a start, establish first that Phil Jones is actually doing something fraudulent instead of just implying that he is?

PS Opinions divide on the expertise of Heartland Institute related William M Briggs regarding AGW:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/william_...

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-b...

Been a day or two since you insulted the climate science profession, has it? Why don't you write Phil Jones and ASK him what he meant by this email, rather than implying something evil? Your hatred for climate scientists and science in general knows no bounds.

As deniers know so well, trends will depend on the time period covered (that's why they always try to start theirs at 1998 and claim the Earth is "cooling"). Here is a reference (which I've given you numerous times in response to countless versions of the same question) in which you'll have a hard time accusing climate scientists of "cherry picking." That's because EVERY possible time period is used to calculate the trend.

Here's a warning, though: you won't like the results.

Liebmann, Brant, Randall M. Dole, Charles Jones, Ileana Bladé, Dave Allured, 2010: Influence of choice of time period on global surface temperature trend estimates. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 91, 1485–1491. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2010BAMS3030.1

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010BA...

EDIT for Ottawa Mike: You said "The emails aren't proof of anything. Even I admit that. So I'm not sure what your rant is about." Perhaps his rant is about the fact that even though you admit that, you've probably asked a hundred similar questions, trying to imply malfeasance on the part of scientists with NO proof whatsoever. You're a hypocrite and a liar.

>>>Does this look like an objective scientific approach at analyzing data?

Without the context of prior or even later discussion it's difficult to tell why they wanted to find a trend of 0.75 specifically. The table they refer to is very likely this one from AR4:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/e...

I don't see any sort of dubious play with start dates, do you? Frankly though I don't see 0.75 anywhere there, unless our emailers were discusses centennial trends (which is possible) - even then, nope, no 0.75 and no 1917. The doubt you're trying to sell though does not seem to be relevant. He made a comment about how to obtain a trend, and warned about being careful because certain start dates had justification over others - your point is?

Sounds like a reasonable discussion that I would have with other scientists and engineers in my work.

Yes they manipulate the data to make their case. The fact is that Global Warming does not exist so they manipulate the data and climate science is not science! Real scientists want nothing to do with green science! Green science is finished long live science!

What is wrong with that? They were skewing it just a little. How are they going to get any grants if only the raw date is put forth? Figures lie and liars figure.

A classic example in "how to lie with statistics" (http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-H...

You can make numbers say anything if you carefully choose your start date, and then tweak the graph so it looks like what you want it to stay.