Phil Jones: Global Warming Data "Unorganized," No Warming Since 1995

That is true if you do not believe in science. Or if you believe science is looking outside and seeing if it is hot or cold outside.

 

Science requires "belief"? What an odd notion if so.

 

If you didn't believe in energy, how can you use E = mc squared?

 

There is no belief required, energy does equal matter converted x 2.

"Believe" is the entire crux of the man centered global warming issue, despite the absolute fact that agendas, and not science, are behind the theory, people still "believe" it because it fits their worldviews.

I've watched with a morbid curiousity as this thread has wandered away from the fact that the CRU project's end product at East Anglia was based on falsified data, that toipic drift is a part of the reason "why" the facts of such Fraud are not discussed rather blanket and rather weak platitudes such as "Believe in AGW or you do not "believe" in Science!" are appealed to.

Sorry DDupree, the whole of the OP contains the gory facts of the Fraud that has been hoisted on the public under the rubric of "science" the evidence of the truthfulness is not a single "believer' in AGW has bothered to provide evidence that the CRU unit at East Anglia did not falsify their data, on the contrary...the fact is never engaged or acknowledged.

 

You have to believe it to use it correctly. If you do not believe it, then you cannot use it correctly. It doesn't matter if it is fact or not. You do not have to believe in gravity, it is all around us. However to use it in scientific equations and correctly, you have to first believe.

The bolded it is not an absolute fact. It is a belief. One that is generally very poorly backed up.

The thread is based on an article that is written by the news equivalent of the National Enquirer. If you want to read trash news for your scientific journal, then more power to you.

I am sorry Padre, however there is not fraud or global conspiracy. That is the fact. There is scientific debate, where there are two sides to a theory. There are good scientists that believe their is global warming, then there are ones that believe that they are wrong.

Then there are crack pots who believe there is a conspiracy and trumpet anything that comes close to proving their cause no matter how unscientific it is, and there are the alarmists like Al Gore, who are using this for their agenda.

however to blanket all of the climatologists into this global conspiracy is just plain wrong. There is no facts to back this up, unless you believe everything that is written on the internet.

The data shows that the earth is warming. While there hasn't been any warming since 1995, that doesn't tell the entire story. That is like saying that the last two years have been growth in the economy so there never was a recession.

 

"...it does not matter if it is fact or not.."

Basically, despite the email evidence, despite one of the CRU's own agenda driven scientists own statements, one will "believe" exactly what one has predetermined to believe, one can disparage the media that wrote the article, one cannot, indeed, has not disputed what is contained therein.

Which is the larger point.

And let me add, one does not have to "believe" one has to "rely", there is a huge difference between the two concepts, "belief" requires faith, "rely" means to use as inherently accurate information, there is no "belief" required.

 

The youtube clips I posted disputed just that.

If the world was 100 years old then no global warming since 1995 would be very significant.

I "believe" what science has shown me so far. Not a few e-mails taken out of context or the Englands version of the National Enquirer.

 

It is to make the case that mankind's actions are the cause of a projected increase in Global Temperatures.

"Out of context"?

Impossible, or willfully blind, the emails were presented in the exact manner in which they were sent, there is no context to impute, they speak for themselves as does the man's statements.

 

That is only true if mankind's actions are the ONLY cause of global shifts in temperatures.

I can look through your hundreds of e-mails you sent to your friend and take a few that make you look like a pedophile. That doesn't mean you diddle children.

 

I believe what Phil Jones said. You are just hearing what you want to hear Phil Jones to say.

 

That was the theory, I speak in past tense for obvious reasons.

Hyperbole will not change the fact that the information from CRU is simply falsified, and what is worse, the people at East Anglia colluded to surpress anyone who dared to pen a article critical of their previous work.

 

Well, real life observations (unbelievably) have taken a back seat to the fancy schmancy computer models that haven't gotten it right yet. So no, I don't believe some in science are actually looking outside, and haven't been for quite some time now.

 

History has shown that scientist are far from immune when it comes to allowing their biases to prejudice outcomes. When Hitler fell many expected to find that the scientists who had come up with their unsupportable theories regarding the master race where being coerced or controlled by the politicians. They found out that wasn't the case. The scientists were being biased by their own beliefs. One basic example was the scientist who filled skulls of different races with sand to compare the average brain pan size. They found that he, probably unconsciously, packed the sand tighter in the Caucasian skulls. (unlike Mr. Jones, this scientist didn't lose his data). When other scientists tried to replicate his findings they couldn't. Basically, he failed the peer review.

Phil Jones never subjected his data to unbiased peer review. The few parts that have been seen are obviously flawed and manipulated. His results are useless in a scientific sense. I place zero value on his findings.

 

Which now calls into question, the "so called" thousands of studies that relied on his data, and the Climategate II data from NASA and NOAA.

What a mess this has all become.

 

yea, it doesn't fit your political ideology.

Also, that has never been a supported theory.

 

REJOICE...REJOICE!!!

 

And here we reach the crux of the matter. Isn't it a shame that the whole thing is really political. If you are a liberal or a greenie you have to believe in this to fit your thoughts on politics. If you are a conservative you have to believe the opposite.

 

I don't consider myself either. I just find that the science was poorly done. It was manipulated and/or fabricated and then it was lost. Everything that it spawned is completely unreliable.