Hi all, this is the biggest news event of the century, but I couldn't see any coverage here? Basically, top government funded climate scientists have been twisting their data to falsify global warming. Their private data was hacked a couple of days ago, and is now all over the internet, such as the quotes below...

 

“I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=794).

 

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=419).

 

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=154).

 

“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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1048).

 

“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=544)

 

For further info, just google 'climategate' it's getting 100,000's of hits globally!

 

Main stream media and the biased BBC aren't saying anything yet, but this isn't going away. As things stand, "Act On CO2" is based on fraudulent data, and sinking fast!

oh here's a surprise...another major plank in the IPCC report on all the himalayan glaciers melting in 25 years gets pulled...the end is nigh for IPCC i can see it melting away in less than 25 years.....25 weeks more like :D

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1243963/UN-science-report-stated-Himalayan-glaciers-melt-25-years-guess.html

Haha, and that article didn't even mention that the IPCC altered the original 2350 to 2035.

 

 

"First, where did this number 2035 (the year when glaciers could vanish) come from?

 

According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493!"

 

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/global-warming-and-glacier-melt-down-debate-a-tempest-in-a-teapot/

Trevz, like I said, I don't think you'll convince me or vice versa.

 

A few hundred is a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny proportion of the global scientific community.

 

I don't think anyone's gathering names of non-sceptics as most think the argument's moot anyway. Solving the problem's more pressing than arguing with an incorrect minority.

 

I admit there possibility exists that I'm incorrect but can you be 100% certain the sceptic argument's true?

Trevz, like I said, I don't think you'll convince me or vice versa.

 

A few hundred is a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny proportion of the global scientific community.

 

I don't think anyone's gathering names of non-sceptics as most think the argument's moot anyway. Solving the problem's more pressing than arguing with an incorrect minority.

 

I admit there possibility exists that I'm incorrect but can you be 100% certain the sceptic argument's true?

 

How wrong you are CD. The "incorrect minority" are actually the correct majority in terms of both scientists and members of the public. The only reason you think otherwise is because you are told so by MSM and in particular the BBC Goverment propaganda machine.

 

You won't take my word for that I know, so all I ask is that when ever you read a report concerning AGW, take a few minutes to read all the responses to that report from concerned citizens who bother to comment about it. You will see that in more than 90% of reports, more than 90% of responses are from realists who do not believe in AGW theory.

 

As time goes by we will see politicians breaking rank and that will have a snowball effect. Coupled with cooling global temperatures for decades to come, AGW theory is a dead theory walking. Warmists, anti-capitalists and Green Peas activists will have to find another method of creating the New World Order based on socialist principles that they religiously strive for, because they sure won't achieve it through the attempted demonisation of Carbon Dioxide.

 

As for being 100% certain, the science says so and that's all that matters to me. There is no visible signal in global temperature data with established cause and effect to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

Government* :)

I'm probably applying to do an MSc on the subject.

 

Oil companies are putting colossal amounts of cash into backing the sceptic argument. The majority of the scientific community still believe it's very real.

oh here's a surprise...another major plank in the IPCC report on all the himalayan glaciers melting in 25 years gets pulled...the end is nigh for IPCC i can see it melting away in less than 25 years.....25 weeks more like :D

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1243963/UN-science-report-stated-Himalayan-glaciers-melt-25-years-guess.html

 

One mistake in 3,000 pages?

 

So that report's only 99.9% correct then....

I'm probably applying to do an MSc on the subject.

 

Oil companies are putting colossal amounts of cash into backing the sceptic argument. The majority of the scientific community still believe it's very real.

 

but BP, Shell & Exxon are funding many green/enviormental projects as well! :D

One mistake in 3,000 pages?

 

So that report's only 99.9% correct then....

 

a word count is not a basis to form validity...99% of what comes from Gordon Browns mouth is cobblers but people still vote for him :D

the glacier melt statement is a fundemental part of the problem, the issue of the glaciers shows a willingness to use badly sourced contributions and hear-say and present them as facts to use in different attempts to secure support/money etc...still dont forget the bit about the tree rings data (this is the bit which forms the basis for all of the historical temp readings and the very foundation for what is being claimed by GW advocates) and so (to my mind at least) the tree rings alone is terminal to the GW theory as it stands today. This is not a biased view as it is related to the facts on tree ring data from people who work in that field and were asked to contribute to the CRU et al,

Tree rings are not an accurate indicator of temperature and to state otherwise is unsound and unscientific.

One mistake in 3,000 pages?

 

So that report's only 99.9% correct then....

 

You appear to be a little behind the times CD, The IPCC report is riddled with falsifications and scare mongering exagerations gathered from non scientific sources.

 

"Last month, the panel (IPCC) was forced to issue a humiliating retraction after it emerged statements about the melting of Himalayan glaciers were inaccurate.

 

Last weekend, this paper revealed that the panel had based claims about disappearing mountain ice on anecdotal evidence in a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

 

And on Friday, it emerged that the IPCC’s panel had wrongly reported that more than half of the Netherlands was below sea level because it had failed to check information supplied by a Dutch government agency.

 

Researchers insist the errors are minor and do not impact on the overall conclusions about climate change.

 

However, senior scientists are now expressing concern at the way the IPCC compiles its reports and have hit out at the panel’s use of so-called “grey literature” — evidence from sources that have not been subjected to scientific *scrutiny.

 

A new poll has revealed that public belief in climate change is weakening.The panel’s controversial chair, Rajendra Pachauri, pictured right, is facing pressure to resign over the affair."

 

We now have Climategate, Glaciergate, Amazongate, Sterngate, Water(vapour)gate, and the latest Africagate (plus others that I can't recall off the top of my head). I've pasted a few links below for the strong of stomach.

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html

 

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/heat-over-faulty-un-view-of-asian-ice/

 

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-does-pielke-think-about-this.html

 

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-tangled-web-we-weave.html

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023598/after-climategate-pachaurigate-and-glaciergate-amazongate/

 

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/pachauri-natural-disaster-scam.html

 

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/and-now-for-africagate.html