Where is defense of guys manipulating data in favor of global warming? Do we have "consensus" Global Warming was ho

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher now than any time over the last couple thousand (at least) years.

And for a decade now, it has been getting colder.

The correlation isn't there, much less the causation.

Study it more? Sure. Tinkle away a few trillion? Not yet.

WELCOME LETSRUN READERS TO ANOTHER MEETING OF THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY!!!!!!!

Just remember, there ain't no damn global warming! It's colder than it's ever been at my house!

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher now than any time over the last couple thousand (at least) years.

And for a decade now, it has been getting colder.

The correlation isn't there, much less the causation.

___________________________________________________________

"And for a decade now, it has been getting colder"

Did you read this in Celebrity News Magazine?

Keith Stone wrote:

Sir Duke wrote:

I believe we do

True, I'm sure you do. Nobody with an IQ over 15 does though.

Ha! Just try the smart people concensus argument. People don't buy that bull anymore because there are lots of people speaking out against it. Your consensus argument isn't good for sh!t anymore and you know it. People are starting to realize how fake global warming is, and your claimed concensus just makes you look that much more foolish.

OP, perhaps try to put some of the words in the actual post as opposed to all in the title?

Oh, so the people who DO believe in global warming don't have to ask themselves those questions? That's a little biased, don't you think?

It's funny how desperate you are to make an example of creationists when you can't prove that they manipulated data on a wide scale. I mean, of course it happens with a few people, but there are many intelligent and honest advocates of creation. So, unless you have an intelligible argument against creationism, stop trying to take cheap shots at it on topics that aren't even relevant to the subject.

PerezEd wrote:

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher now than any time over the last couple thousand (at least) years.

And for a decade now, it has been getting colder.

The correlation isn't there, much less the causation.

Study it more? Sure. Tinkle away a few trillion? Not yet.

Factual support for that one?

Here's a couple of sites for those of you who prefer to look at the actual statistics and to see how and where the temperature data was apparently manipulated:

http://www.climateaudit.org

http://wattsupwiththat.com

Of course, these required that someone actually had to look at the required programming code and comments, and not just the emails. For anyone with statistical knowledge, it's obvious that the data was changed to fit a preconceived conclusion.

Let me see if I understand this right. I am a scientist who has data and models that show the potential destruction of the human race in the next 100 years (if you believe the Al Gore crowd). What do I do with that data? I destroy it. Commence discussion of the everpopular letsrun topic of the scientific method.

Actually, now that the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2008 to a 1983 level, the ’global warming’ freaks have subtley changed the definition to ’climate change.’

Now just how we are going to stop the climate from ‘changing’, when it’s been doing precisely that since the dawn of time - must be in the realms of fantasy.

Wasn’t the Viking, Eric the Red, busily farming in Greenland a few centuries ago?

How much CO2 was in the atmosphere back then?

One certainly couldn’t encourage immigration to farm in ice-bound Greenland these days.

All I know is there was frost on the punkin' this morning. That's pretty early for this neck of the woods. GW my ass.

Actually, now that the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2008 to a 1983 level, the ’global warming’ freaks have subtley changed the definition to ’climate change.’

Now just how we are going to stop the climate from ‘changing’, when it’s been doing precisely that since the dawn of time - must be in the realms of fantasy.

Wasn’t the Viking, Eric the Red, busily farming in Greenland a few centuries ago?

How much CO2 was in the atmosphere back then?

One certainly couldn’t encourage immigration to farm in ice-bound Greenland these days.

___________________________________________________________

Were dou you fools come up with this stuff

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091117_globalstats.html

again...there are far more scientists who do not but into the official 9/11 story than deny global warming. I am assuming you all buy into the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense also right?

CLAIM: These scientists worked to suppress evidence and deleted emails.

TRUTH: Thousands of emails from over 13 years were stolen, and edited, and have been taken out of context for those with a political agenda

CLAIM: Scientists have manipulated data.

TRUTH: Skeptics have been pointing to an email from scientist Phil Jones where he said he used a "trick" with his data. As climate expert Bob Ward writes, "Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something -- a short cut can be a trick."

CLAIM: Scientists had private doubts about whether the world really is heating up.

TRUTH: Combing through over a decade of personal correspondence, which is then taken out of context can seem to prove just about anything. Skeptics have been pointing to one email from Kevin Trenberth, in which he said, "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." However, this is clear example of cherrypicking quotes. Trenberth was referring to that there was an "incomplete explanation" of the short-term variability of temperatures, but concludes that "global warming is unequivocally happening."

1/10.

There is no doubt that we have been in a warming trend. The evidence is in all the receding glaciers and ice sheets. That is undeniable... for sane people anyways.

And yet, we have this evidence:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/

Show/tell us what part of the web page proves the earth is not warming........................................................................................

didnt think so

Um, it's called sublimation.

Rory Sewart wrote:

Actually, now that the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2008 to a 1983 level, the ’global warming’ freaks have subtley changed the definition to ’climate change.’

___________________________________________________________

Were do you fools come up with this stuff

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091117_globalstats.html

I didn't see anything in your link to contradict the previous poster's statement. Besides, here's a graph that backs up what he said:

Note, the 13 month average in 2008 was lower than it was in 1980, 1988, 1991, 1996, 1998, and 2002-2007. It has risen this year but is still lower than 1998, 2002, 2006, and 2007.

Unfortunately, the satellite record only starts in 1979, forcing us to use the very incomplete and inaccurate surface temperature record before then. Here's the US record from 1880 to 2008:

As the satellite record shows, there was warming from the late 70's up to the late 90's. Also, as the satellites show, there has been slight cooling since then. 2008 was only about 0.1 degrees warmer than the 128 year baseline. It's also important to note that temperatures were as high in the 30's (during a depression) as they are now. They then FELL until the late 70's during the postwar industrial boom. Temperatures fell in the US during a period of rapidly rising CO2 emissions.