Did I miss the thread about the CRU Fraud?

[KrazyHorse]

I CAN'T TAKE MYSELF SERIOUSLY WHEN THE SMILIE HAS A SANTA CLAUS HAT ON :minussantaclausehatangry:

[Darius871]

Have another highball, it'll all be ok.

[HalfLotus]

The basic methods they use to calibrate the data have been explained. That's what they mean when they refer to "Mike's Nature trick"....

The Nature Trick refers to the infamous hockey stick graph, which has been thoroughly discredited as a climate modeling fraud.

The raw data itself is also under scrutiny. Like surface recording stations parked next to large heat generating equipment; and proxy "tree ring" data that is questionable.

Re: raw data:

"We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artifcial heating or radiating/refecting heat source.

We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were flled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher."

Re: "adjustments":

NOAA adjusts temperature data also, and despite the pervasive evidence that recent changes in technology and location have introduced an upward bias in the temperature record over time, NOAA has been making adjustments that increase the warming trend.

NOAA’s “adjustments” account for nearly one-half of the agreed-upon rise in temperature in the twentieth century. The same adjustments are applied to the GHCN global temperature dataset."

From: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...t_spring09.pdf

[Darius871]

The Nature Trick refers to the infamous hockey stick graph, which has been thoroughly discredited as a climate modeling fraud.

The raw data itself is also under scrutiny. Like surface recording stations parked next to large heat generating equipment; and proxy "tree ring" data that is questionable.

Re: raw data:




Re: "adjustments":




From: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...t_spring09.pdf

I have much to learn from you, ZakuHL. Oh please god, don't let it stop...

[HalfLotus]

Bah, Zaku was a left/right stooge, and sounded like a Limbaugh fan. Not me.

[Lorizael]

No, of course not. Limbaugh is part of the NWO, too.

[KrazyHorse]

ZakuHL

[Darius871]

left/right stooge

Such a sad ripoff. Why not come up with your own material?

[DinoDoc]

I think Obama wants to be a one term President.

Administration Warns of 'Command-and-Control' Regulation Over Emissions

FOXNews.com

The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a "command-and-control" role over the process in way that could hurt business.

The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a "command-and-control" role over the process in a way that could hurt business.

The warning, from a top White House economic official who spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity, came on the eve of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's address to the international conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Jackson, however, tried to strike a tone of cooperation in her address Wednesday, explaining that the EPA's new powers to regulate greenhouse gases will be used to complement legislation pending in Congress, not replace it.

"This is not an 'either-or' moment. It's a 'both-and' moment," she said.

But while administration officials have long said they prefer Congress take action on climate change, the economic official who spoke with reporters Tuesday night made clear that the EPA will not wait and is prepared to act on its own.

And it won't be pretty.

"If you don't pass this legislation, then ... the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area," the official said. "And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it's going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."

Climate change legislation that passed the House is stuck in the Senate, but the EPA finding Monday was seen as a boost to the U.S. delegation in Denmark trying to convince other countries that Washington is capable of taking action to follow through with any global commitments.

The economic official explained that congressional action could be better for the economy, since it would provide "compensation" for higher energy prices, especially for small businesses dealing with those higher energy costs. Otherwise, the official warned that the kind of "uncertainty" generated by unilateral EPA action would be a huge "deterrent to investment," in an economy already desperate for jobs.

"So, passing the right kind of legislation with the right kind of compensations seems to us to be the best way to reduce uncertainty and actually to encourage investment," the official said.

Republicans fear that the EPA will ultimately end up stepping in to regulate emissions -- though many oppose the congressional legislation as well. They had urged Jackson to withdraw the finding in light of leaked e-mails from a British research center that appeared to show scientists discussing the manipulation of climate data.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., ranking Republican on the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, said Tuesday he is going to attend the Copenhagen conference to inform world leaders that despite any promises made by President Obama, no new laws will be passed in the United States until the "scientific fascism" ends.

"I call it 'scientific fascism,'" Sensenbrenner said during a press conference with fellow climate change skeptics. Sensenbrenner said, "The U.N. should throw a red flag" on scientists who support global warming to the exclusion of dissent.

Administration officials, though, said the e-mails do not change the debate.

Former Vice President Al Gore, a leader in the movement on man-caused climate change, told CNN on Wednesday that the e-mails in questions were 10 years old and taken "out of context."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/09/administration-warns-command-control-regulation-emissions/

Do what I want or I'll destroy the American economy!

[HalfLotus]

No, of course not. Limbaugh is part of the NWO, too.

He's the epitome of a useful idiot.

[Lorizael]

He's the epitome of a useful idiot.

I've always found it curious how much conspiracy theorists tend to rely on buzzwords to get their points across. You'd think individuals so wary of manipulation would be hesitant of falling prey to groupthink.

[HalfLotus]

This from the guy who uses the words "conspiracy theory" incessantly. Ha.

[Lorizael]

Yes, but I'm one of the sheeple, so of course I'm going to be a victim of memetic viruses! You, on the other hand, as one of the enlightened, should know better.

Also, any chance you're actually going to respond to the arguments made against your specious claims?

[HalfLotus]

So you can continue backpedaling into a coy and sarcastic corner when you don't have an argument? No thanks, it got old a few page ago.

[Lorizael]

What, exactly, is coy, sarcastic, and non-existent about these arguments to which you failed to respond?

Not true at all. Some studies have indicated that abiogenic petroleum might be possible, which is a long, long way from saying that the world's supply of oil comes from deep underground and not from ancient biomass.

Yes, let's compare the profits of those two industries.

*nod* Compare. GE is the largest company in the world and has revenue and profits in line with the various "Big Oil" companies. Pretty much every other company associated with green or clean tech is at least an order of magnitude lower.

HalfLotus, if you want to know why everyone thinks you're bat**** crazy, it's because your beliefs are functionally equivalent to ancient Norse or Greek mythology. For an explanation of why this is a terribly bad way to construct a worldview, watch this video:



The short of it is this: You make baby Occam cry.

Speaking of lies...

As I noted earlier in the thread, a very influential think tank, The Club of Rome, had a very serious discussion and published a book called The First Global Revolution. In that book, smart men in the employ of rich and powerful men, Rockefellers among others, stated:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.

The rest of the paragraph is...

In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attributes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.

Which would seem to indicate that the Club of Rome was not intending to make global warming the enemy. Instead, they seemed to be implying that human behavior is harmful which, well, is kind of true. We do tend to kill a lot of people for various reasons.

The book states that the "enemy" could be real or invented.

I'm guessing this is the section you're talking about.

The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself - when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose. With the disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptation is to use religious or ethnic minorities as scapegoats, especially those whose differences from the majority are disturbing.

Oops. Turns out the book is just musing on what past states have done when faced with political problems.

They then published Limits to Growth some years later, which was a rallying cry for a generation of eco-lovers.

Lie. The Limits to Growth was their first publication and came out in 1972. The First Global Revolution was published in 1991.

If you doubt the influence of Rockefellers and their ilk, or of think tanks like The Club of Rome, which Al Gore is a member, I would strongly disagree.

Really? Al Gore's a member? Not according to their website. He's not a full member, associate member, honorary member, or any other kind of member. So what kind of member is he? There's no mention of the Club of Rome in Gore's wikipedia page, nor a mention of Al Gore in the Club of Rome's. The only sites that seem to link the two of them together are other conspiracy sites. So, another lie, perhaps?

One last piece of bull****...

In that book, smart men in the employ of rich and powerful men, Rockefellers among others, stated:

If you doubt the influence of Rockefellers and their ilk, or of think tanks like The Club of Rome, which Al Gore is a member, I would strongly disagree.

Rockefeller has essentially no association with the Club of Rome. The first meeting of the think tank happened to take place at a hotel owned by the Rockefeller Foundation in Italy. That's it. That's the only connection. The rest is crap filled in by conspiracy theorists.

And even if Rockefeller and Gore are somehow connected to the Club of Rome, it's hilarious to believe that this implies some sort of conspiracy. Oh, no! Two influential men and an influential think tank are associated in some manner! Clearly, there must be something afoot! But even that ridiculous line of logic is flawed. Because there is no connection. It's just a series of fabrications.