The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

Science is evidence based, and checkable.

Conspiracy theories (like that scientists are faking it) - are neither fact based, nor checkable.

[freebeard]

You might distinguish between conspiracy theory and conspiracy analysis.

Speaking of science:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK3M7W-lFJo

It turns out that Universe might be a dipole.

[oil pan 4]

Some of the scientists are faking it, they have been caught 3 times at the institutional level manipulating the numbers.

[niky]

The three times, supposedly, one was corrections due to a satellite's declining orbit, the other "proof" was a bunch of emails taken out of context, between a small number of people, and the third... I forget the third?

A conspiracy of this scale requires EVERYONE to be in on it. Which is pretty difficult to achieve. If even oil industry funded studies point towards AGW, who's benefiting?

Climate denialism has very clear political winners who do benefit. Climate change doesn't turn climate scientists into billionaires (some friends in the field like to joke: "Where are my shillbucks?")... friends in science who doubt the severity of AGW don't doubt the data... at all... their argument is on the strength of feedback mechanisms and whether these do count more than natural cycles.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

What Web sites do I cite?

You say misinterpreted, I say critical analysis.
If you want to believe it you are going to belive it and avoid being critical of it.

I'm looking forward to putting global warming on trial. Because this isn't some science fair where the head belivers are preaching to their own choir.
The only people not looking forward to seeing global warming on trial are the believers, because they already know it's going to be embarrassing.
This is so big because any time the government tries to pass some law about limiting CO2 or preventing sea level rise in some this case will be invoked. Most of the house will laugh, the bill will be balled up and thrown in with all the gun control bills.

*Want* to believe?

I used to be of the opinion that the climate cycle was natural, and that human emissions were only playing a minor role in whatever cycle was unfolding.

It took me a long time to review the evidence given to come to the conclusion that, yes, burning millions of years' worth of stored hydrocarbons in just over a century really DOES pump more carbon into the carbon cycle than natural systems can recycle easily.

Then you get to the increase in ice cover in the Antarctic (as ACKNOWLEDGED by climate researchers) slowing down, then you get to disrupted climate systems, ocean acidification due to excessive CO2. The S0 video citing the pause? Hardy har har. Indications by cycles other than carbon tell us that warming should not be pausing, it should be reversing.

But it isn't. We've hit a number of record highs after the predictable "pause" (predictable because El Nino and Solar Activity, and "pause" in air-quotes because it was still damn hot). There's no turning back now. Not unless we set off a few more Pinatubos to slow the warming down again.

[oil pan 4]

The third instance scientists were caught adding weather stations for tracking climate change that tended to give more hot erroneous readings and deleting stations that tended to give more low erroneous readings.
But it was probably just some innocent error or oil company conspiracy.

[freebeard]

I don't think we know which way it will go. But that's not a call for inaction.

Focusing on the 'three cases' ignores the ongoing selection each quarter of which heat map to display. S0 prefers one different to the official one, but I don't know which (spread vs extremes or something). Does anyone know which types those maps are?

[oil pan 4]

The thing is they haven't done it just those 3 times, these are just the 3 times they got caught. Basic criminology tells us that as long as you aren't leaving a trail of dead bodies then around 97% of criminal activity goes unanswered for.
Or they're so incompetent that they get caught every single time they try it, which I highly doubt.

[niky]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The third instance scientists were caught adding weather stations for tracking climate change that tended to give more hot erroneous readings and deleting stations that tended to give more low erroneous readings.
But it was probably just some innocent error or oil company conspiracy.

Citation needed.

Because I have not heard of that particular one.

In fact, over the past few years, I've read many discussions in which climate scientists have been looking for ways to correct for stations that give erroneously hot readings due to the "heat island" effect... as urbanized areas have grown up around them.

-

Can you pull off a conspiracy like this with a small number of closely knit researchers handling ALL the climate data?

Sure.

Can you pull it off with thousands around the world monitoring satellite data, ground station data, weather patterns, wind patterns, debating (fighting, really) endlessly about proper temperature correction factors, drilling for ice cores, extrapolating from tree rings, measuring ocean acidification, mathematically calculating water level rise and fall (and debating (fighting, again, really) proper formulas for volume expansion due to heat) and measuring ice sheet loss AND gain? Uh...

[redneck]

.

4th...

http://ecomodder.com/forum/555935-post621.html



>

[redneck]

.

The Paris Climate Fraud


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=cVkAsPizAbU

>