Have scientists created data to advance their Glabal Warming causes?

Question

I beleive in climate change, but am wondering why it's not called "Global Warming" anylonger? I was also told by some teachers that a few years back some emails surfaced showing that scientists were conspiring to push their agenda by hiding or creating data/facts. Can anyone provide me with any links or concrete proof to help me make my own decision regarding this issue of Globalwarming/Climatechange, Thank you ; }

Answer 1

Everybody believes in Climate Change, I'm a skeptic of man-made Global Warming but I surely believe in climate change. The Climate has always changed and probably always will, BUT the REAL ISSUE is what is causing it. And the data clearly supports that the small amount of warming the planet has experienced over the last several decades is TOTALLY NATURAL, it's just another natural cycle. The fact is, it's the SUN that controls climate and temperature and people don't control the Sun.



And yes, there is widespread data tampering in the Climatist community. Probably the worst offender is James Hansen at GISS.



Data Tampering at GISS Flash presentation

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/data-corruption-at-giss/



Here are many pages of examples of Tampering with Various Data

http://www.climatedepot.com/search.asp?cx=partner-pub-2896112664106093%3Am5ewh74pu5c&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=tampering&sa=Search



Here are some other things you should know:



1) The Earth has been both much warmer and much colder in the distant past, long before the industrial age. Climate is indeed changing, but it has always changed and probably always will. These are obviously natural cycles that man does not and cannot control.



2) Global Warming alarmist have been caught in one lie after another. Huge scandals have been continuously revealed since the early 1980’s when the campaign began. Some of these are listed below:



3) Al Gore’s movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was full of bald faced lies. Like the Polar Bears were drowning, or the Ice Caps were melting, or the oceans were rising --- all lies. In fact a court of England ruled the movie was so flawed that it could not be shown to school children without a disclaimer.



4) The ClimateGate affair exposed the utter corruption of the Warmist community with their exposed emails speaking of how they intended to “hide the decline” and how to manipulate data and the peer-review process in their favor.



5) Then there is the fact that the globe isn’t even warming anymore and the small amount of warming experienced from the 1900’s to 2001 timeframe was negligible and well within the envelope of normal.



6) During this same period of marginal warming, scientists also noticed that other planets in our solar system were warming. What do these planets have in common ? --- the Sun.



7) Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, the Guru and High Priest of Global Warming himself admitted there has been no statistically significant warming. If anyone on the planet would have been aware of statistically significant warming it would have been Phil Jones and he admitted there has been none. (Game Over)



8) Warmist like Al Gore refuse to engage in any formal debate on the issue. That’s because on the few occasions Warmist have debated openly, they lose, and they lose big. Lord Monckton utterly destroys them time and time again.



9) Al Gore and other Warmist have stated clearly that they want to make CO2 the object of a global tax. CO2 is the perfect object for their revenue purposes because you literally cannot live without making CO2, after all, we exhale it. And current science has shown clearly that there is no correlation between the planet’s mean temperature and the concentration of CO2 in the air. Demonizing CO2 is all about the tax dollars, and that’s all its about.



See the scam for what it is and don’t believe any of it.



Polar Bears are doing fine:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190805/20110802/polar-bear-global-warming-extinction-climate-change-research-world-wide-fund-wwf-geological-survey-s.htm



Phil Jones admits NO statistically significant warming

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/



35 major errors in Al Gore’s movie

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html



Court rules Al Gore’s movie unfit without disclaimer (11 major errors reviewed)

http://creation.com/al-gores-inconvenient-errors



No Correlation between CO2 and Temperature Graphs

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/correlation_last_decade_and_this_century_between_co2_and_global_temperature/



Warming on Mars -- and Jupiter, Pluto, Neptune

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6544





For the full story on the man-made Global Warming scam watch these:



The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk



Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295#



-----------------------

Answer 2

The final ice age ended approximately 10,000 years in the past (in accordance to scientists). It ended because of the fact the climate around the earth began to heat. This became long till now any guy-made pollutants became modern. The pollutants that the international warming nazi's are speaking approximately began in the early and mid 1900's. in the mid-1930's, the delivery industry had subjects with an excellent team of icebergs breaking loose from Antarctica and floating up close to Australia. This became till now the guy-made pollutants might have had any consequence on the international climate. yet, in 2009, yet another super team of icebergs broke loose from Antarctica and floated up close to Australia lower back, yet this time it became because of the fact of international warming? Is the international getting warmer? in all threat so. If it wasn't getting warmer, then i think the ice age might have never ended. Is guy the clarification for international warming? of direction not. present day guy and his technologies did not exist 10,000 years in the past to commence the present warming trend.

Answer 3

The claim that scientists have manipulated the data is nothing more than a lie that is perpetuated by those who would rather deny the existence of global warming than face up to reality.



The simple fact of the matter is that temperature records are maintained by scientific organisations, universities, the military, botanical gardens, observatories, mountaineering clubs, schools, government departments, individual weather watchers etc. It doesn’t matter which temperature records you refer to, they all show the same trend.



To claim that the data are manipulated simply demonstrates the bizarre nature of some of the claims made by the deniers. Are they trying to tell us that school children are part of some global conspiracy, that air traffic controllers are more concerned with global warming than the safety of the aeroplanes or that gardeners around the world have been conscripted into some sinister government plot.



In any event, you can ignore every temperature record there is and simply look to nature for all the evidence you need of a warming planet. Many species are very temperature sensitive, you can work out the temperature by their migratory and breeding patterns.



The emails that your teachers are referring to will no doubt be part of the data that was stolen from the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia, England. A couple of years ago hackers accessed the computers and stole several thousand emails and other documents. After trawling through them they weren’t able to find any evidence of manipulating the data so instead they took a few phrases out of context and fabricated their own version of events around them (see Matt’s answer for more details).



There have been several investigations conducted into the content of the documents and the conduct of the scientists involved. These have been undertaken by the universities involved, the government, the police, independent commissions etc and without exception the scientists were exonerated of any wrong-doing. Of course, this did nothing to stop the spread of lies on the internet.





Here’s a few FACTS, all of which are easily verified:



• For every cold temperature record that’s broken there are 17 hot temperature records that are broken.



• 2011 was the 45th consecutive year when the global temperature trend increased.



• The average global temperature is warmer now than at any time since the last but one ‘ice-age’



• Greenhouse gas levels have risen more in the last 100 years than they did in the preceding 15 million years.



• The net effect of natural cycles has been one of cooling since 1979.



• The warming in recent decades is 26 times faster than natural cycles can produce.



• The invariable and universal laws of quantum mechanics dictate the existence of global warming.



• There isn’t a single scientific organisation on the planet, national or international, that disputes humans are affecting the climate.



• 90% of the ‘scientists’ and ‘scientific reports’ that opposed the global warming theory were paid by Exxon to tell lies (something Exxon have openly admitted to, not that it’s stopped the deniers from repeating the lies).





When it comes to deciding for yourself have a look at the different sources of information that the two ‘sides’ of the debate use. Those who accept global warming is happening have the backing of almost every scientist on the planet, they have the laws of science to back them up, the visible evidence right around the planet, thousands and thousands of research projects, data going back over half a billion years etc.



Conversely, those who reject the global warming theory have almost nothing. They have to rely on the likes of Lord Monckton, Steven Goddard and Anthony Watts, who don’t have a single relevant qualification amongst them but do have a proven history of fraud, lies and distortion.



Take Lord Monckton for example. He claims he’s a Lord – he’s not, he’s a Viscount, the UK House of Lords has told him to stop pretending he’s a Lord but he’s ignored them. He claims he was the Chief Scientific Advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher – he wasn’t. He claims he has no connection to the oil industry – he’s lying again, his father was the chairman of the Iraq Oil Company. He pretends to be an expert on climate change, he’s got no relevant qualifications at all. In fact, I wouldn’t even trust him to tell me the time of day.

Answer 4

have a look at this site- it deconstructs the arguments for and against human influences on climate change: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Answer 5

Yes they have. Because reality tells a different story.

http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-fake-temperatures.html

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/why-giss-temperatures-are-too-high/

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/03/google-warming-google-sponsors-student-to-fabricate-global-warming-temperatures-for-nasa.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/03/01/fakegate-the-obnoxious-fabrication-of-global-warming/

http://theacru.org/acru/fakegate_the_obnoxious_fabrication_of_global_warming/

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/my_weblog/page/2/

Answer 6

The controversy was a result of quote mining.



Quote mining is when you look through a large amount of text for something you can take out of context. Once taken out of context, the quote appears to support your position, even though the whole text actually opposes it.



In this case, climate scientists working on global warming had their emails stolen by an unknown computer hacker, and published online in 2009. Out of context, one quote from these emails -- a scientist using a "trick" to "hide the decline" -- makes the scientists appear to be lying to cover up a drop in global temperatures



Of course, this can't be true. Global temperatures weren't in decline in 2009. Multiple independent lines of evidence, not just the ones these scientists were working on, all show global temperatures were, in fact, still increasing. Indeed, the very next year, 2010, would be statistically tied for the hottest year ever recorded.



So what "trick" and what "decline" were the scientists actually talking about? You have to look at the context. Numerous investigations have all looked into the matter, and all reached the same conclusion: tree rings.



The scientists were talking about a mathematical adjustment to reconcile tree ring measurements with direct instrumental temperature readings. Tree ring measurements were very good at estimating temperatures before 1960 (tree rings and direct measurements matched nicely), but suddenly began to underestimate temperatures after 1960. That is, after 1960, temperatures reconstructed from tree ring measurements begin to show an erroneous decline that must be corrected, since direct temperature readings show the planet's surface has warmed considerably since 1960.



==========



"Global warming" vs. "climate change"



Global warming refers to just the observed temperature changes. We look at average global temperatures over the last century, and we see they went up, and haven't stopped going up yet. That's really all global warming is. So we don't really talk about global warming much, because (except for conspiracy theorists) it's just an uninteresting and non-controversial set of numbers.



Climate change is an expected impact of global warming. Whereas global warming is observed fact, climate change is a little more theoretical. We can't predict exactly how any particular region's climate will change (warmer/cooler/wetter/drier), but we're confident that many climates will change over the next century, with more warmer than cooler, and the severity of the changes will relate to the amount of global warming that happens. A lot of uncertainty is in store, and that's why climate change is a big concern for climate scientists.

Answer 7

There is a very good book called the Hockey Stick Illusion by Monckton (spelling?). In it, he discusses all sorts of tricks that Mann et al used to attempt to flatten the past and exaggerate the recent past. It is hard to point your finger at any particular piece of data because so much of it is manipulated, usually appropriately.