Quote: Original post by Codeka
...
But let's assume for a minute that you're right, and this guy is the only person who's actually telling the truth (unless you can find more people who are telling the truth?). That means that there's one guy telling the truth and about 5,000 other scientists who are "in" on the "conspiracy". Right? It's not me who's crazy, it's the whole world who's crazy!
...

Early scientists were of nearly unanimous opinion that the earth was the center of the earth, in times yonder. And pretty much only Nicolas Copernicus stood against them. so.... was copernicus crazy and we've now been duped to believe a false theory? Just trying to add a bit of perspective.

Quote: you still took his words to mean that anthropogenic climate change is fake

I didn't say global warming is fake, I said evidence that proves global warming is likely to be fake.

Quote: But let's assume for a minute that you're right, and this guy is the only person who's actually telling the truth (unless you can find more people who are telling the truth?). That means that there's one guy telling the truth and about 5,000 other scientists who are "in" on the "conspiracy". Right? It's not me who's crazy, it's the whole world who's crazy!

That's the whole point of a conspiracy! Just because one guy chose to ruin his career for the truth doesn't mean all other 5,000 guys will do the same.

Quote: And just on that "code" you provided, where is the link between the graph that code outputs and any actual graphs that people are using to describe warming? So you found a snippet of code where the comment says "fudge factor" and immediately it brings every temperature graph into question?

The main point here is that somebody tried to do it. Why else would you make code that does "an artificial correction for decline" and then not do anything with it?

Here's some important news that was ignored.

Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report (Oct. 9, 2009)

Quote:
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.
...
Tripati, before joining UCLA's faculty, was part of a research team at England’s University of Cambridge that developed a new technique to assess carbon dioxide levels in the much more distant past — by studying the ratio of the chemical element boron to calcium in the shells of ancient single-celled marine algae. Tripati has now used this method to determine the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere as far back as 20 million years ago.
...
"We then applied this technique to study the history of carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago to 20 million years ago," she said. "We report evidence for a very close coupling between carbon dioxide levels and climate. When there is evidence for the growth of a large ice sheet on Antarctica or on Greenland or the growth of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, we see evidence for a dramatic change in carbon dioxide levels over the last 20 million years.

"A slightly shocking finding," Tripati said, "is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different."
...
"During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today," Tripati said. "Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount."

Tripati's new chemical technique has an average uncertainty rate of only 14 parts per million.

"We can now have confidence in making statements about how carbon dioxide has varied throughout history," Tripati said.

In the last 20 million years, key features of the climate record include the sudden appearance of ice on Antarctica about 14 million years ago and a rise in sea level of approximately 75 to 120 feet.

"We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in carbon dioxide levels of about 100 parts per million, a huge change," Tripati said. "This record is the first evidence that carbon dioxide may be linked with environmental changes, such as changes in the terrestrial ecosystem, distribution of ice, sea level and monsoon intensity."
...
More than 50 million years ago, there were no ice sheets on Earth, and there were expanded deserts in the subtropics, Tripati noted. The planet was radically different.
...

Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan
I didn't say global warming is fake, I said evidence that proves global warming is likely to be fake.

What's the difference between "global warming is fake" and "evidence that proves global warming" is fake? Or are you saying the difference is in the "likely"? That is, you believe that global warming is likely to be fake?

Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan

Quote: But let's assume for a minute that you're right, and this guy is the only person who's actually telling the truth (unless you can find more people who are telling the truth?). That means that there's one guy telling the truth and about 5,000 other scientists who are "in" on the "conspiracy". Right? It's not me who's crazy, it's the whole world who's crazy!

That's the whole point of a conspiracy! Just because one guy chose to ruin his career for the truth doesn't mean all other 5,000 guys will do the same.

A consipracy generally involves a very small number of people, precicely because it's so hard to keep large numbers of people "in" on the conspiracy. With so many scientists apparently "in" on this conspiracy, don't you think it's strange you've only been able to find one who's willing to speak the "truth"?

Especially if that guy has been shown in the past to have a bias towards denial!

Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan

Quote: And just on that "code" you provided, where is the link between the graph that code outputs and any actual graphs that people are using to describe warming? So you found a snippet of code where the comment says "fudge factor" and immediately it brings every temperature graph into question?

The main point here is that somebody tried to do it. Why else would you make code that does "an artificial correction for decline" and then not do anything with it?

I don't know, you tell me? If you can't find the actual graphs that this piece of code has influenced, then what's the point of even bringing it up?

Yes, this code could have been used to fudge data, but which data? Which graphs?

Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan

Quote: you still took his words to mean that anthropogenic climate change is fake

I didn't say global warming is fake, I said evidence that proves global warming is likely to be fake.

Quote: But let's assume for a minute that you're right, and this guy is the only person who's actually telling the truth (unless you can find more people who are telling the truth?). That means that there's one guy telling the truth and about 5,000 other scientists who are "in" on the "conspiracy". Right? It's not me who's crazy, it's the whole world who's crazy!

That's the whole point of a conspiracy! Just because one guy chose to ruin his career for the truth doesn't mean all other 5,000 guys will do the same.

Are you serious? Or just trolling for laughs?

You really think that there's not a single national scientific organization that supports The Truth ... and that this conspiracy is based (in no small part) upon hundreds of openly-available research papers that any idiot off the streets can feel free to read and dig through for any "faked" data???

Assuming that practically every journalist and scientist is itching for fame and could gain immortality by turning the scientific world on its head, where are the ones presenting us with rebuttals for papers that happen to be loaded with this "faked" data???

Quote: What's the difference between "global warming is fake" and "evidence that proves global warming" is fake?

Huge difference. If the evidence has been faked, then we have no indication whether global warming is real or not. No-body can say if global warming is real, thanks to the people that fabricated the evidence.

Quote: A consipracy generally involves a very small number of people, precicely because it's so hard to keep large numbers of people "in" on the conspiracy. With so many scientists apparently "in" on this conspiracy, don't you think it's strange you've only been able to find one who's willing to speak the "truth"?

It's strange indeed, when given a choice between having a job or losing a job, people choose having a job. That's because they have mouths to feed, and a mortgage to pay. The longer this conspiracy is kept under control the longer they have their job.

Quote: I don't know, you tell me? If you can't find the actual graphs that this piece of code has influenced, then what's the point of even bringing it up?

Yes, this code could have been used to fudge data, but which data? Which graphs?

And how do you expect me to find out? There's no label over every graph that says which piece of code used to create it. It's clear that the person who wrote this code tried to remove a temperature decline. For what reason? I think you know.

Quote:
You really think that there's not a single national scientific organization that supports The Truth ... and that this conspiracy is based (in no small part) upon hundreds of openly-available research papers that any idiot off the streets can feel free to read and dig through for any "faked" data???

The Soviet Union was kept alive for 70 years by using lies, trickery and propaganda. No "organization that supports the truth" has ever came up, that's because any were quickly neutralized by the immense power of the communist government. The same thing happens here, climate change supporters are able to thwart the skeptics through their massive support.

Quote:
Assuming that practically every journalist and scientist is itching for fame and could gain immortality by turning the scientific world on its head, where are the ones presenting us with rebuttals for papers that happen to be loaded with this "faked" data???

Any scientist having that "itch" would be deemed a skeptic and a fool by the climate change supporters. Definitely not good for him and exact opposite of the fame and immortality you say he will have.
Instead he will have the exact opposite "itch":

Quote: Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'

source

Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan

Quote: A consipracy generally involves a very small number of people, precicely because it's so hard to keep large numbers of people "in" on the conspiracy. With so many scientists apparently "in" on this conspiracy, don't you think it's strange you've only been able to find one who's willing to speak the "truth"?

It's strange indeed, when given a choice between having a job or losing a job, people choose having a job. That's because they have mouths to feed, and a mortgage to pay. The longer this conspiracy is kept under control the longer they can have their job.

Do seriously believe all those scientists are so immoral and corrupt that they'd ignore their own scientific and personal integrity just to keep a job? Besides, I'm pretty sure there's plenty of people who'd pay big bucks for the "scoop" that conclusively proves that global warming is a big scam.

Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan

Quote: Yes, this code could have been used to fudge data, but which data? Which graphs?

And how do you expect me to find out?

So you can't prove that the code was used to create fake graphs.

Quote: Original post by Momoko_FanIt's clear that the person who wrote this code tried to remove a temperature decline. Why? I think you know.

I don't know why, that's the whole point. It seems to me that you're jumping to conclusions without any evidence to back them up.

Quote: Do seriously believe all those scientists are so immoral and corrupt that they'd ignore their own scientific and personal integrity just to keep a job?

Yes. With a job you have a home and money to spend, without a job you're outside homeless asking for food from strangers. And it's not just a job, it's a big stain on your entire career if you have been found out to be lying about scientific data.

Quote: Besides, I'm pretty sure there's plenty of people who'd pay big bucks for the "scoop" that conclusively proves that global warming is a big scam.

I don't think that is needed. We already have a crapload of emails, documents, and people who agree that global warming evidence has been faked.
There's over 9 million results if you search for "climategate" on google.

Quote: So you can't prove that the code was used to create fake graphs.

That's right, I can't prove that this code was used to create fake graphs, and I don't need to. It's the intention that harms.

Quote: I don't know why, that's the whole point. It seems to me that you're jumping to conclusions without any evidence to back them up.

You have raw temperature data that is declining with time. This doesn't fit with your research that says that there's global warming. So what do you do? Add a little "fudge factor", to alter the temperatures so they appear to be increasing. Now your research sounds plausible, your boss is happy, and you get a raise.

Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan

Quote: Do seriously believe all those scientists are so immoral and corrupt that they'd ignore their own scientific and personal integrity just to keep a job?

Yes. With a job you have a home and money to spend, without a job you're outside homeless asking for food from strangers.

By your logic the vast majority of the worlds population must be involved in some scam.

Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan
I don't think that is needed. We already have a crapload of emails, documents, and people who agree that global warming evidence has been faked.
There's over 9 million results if you search for "climategate" on google.

"9/11 conspiracy" gets almost seven million results

Quote: A consipracy generally involves a very small number of people, precicely because it's so hard to keep large numbers of people "in" on the conspiracy. With so many scientists apparently "in" on this conspiracy, don't you think it's strange you've only been able to find one who's willing to speak the "truth"?

Actually, my guess is the number of people really into specific climate fields like temperature reconstruction or climate simulation or cloud formation is rather small. If the correct answer to the questions of those fields is "we don't have much of a clue" it is not that likely that scientists, who are extremely biased towards discovering stuff, will produce that correct answer. Who will spend a few years to prove the best of our knowledge is not probably right but slightly less than plausibly right? Who will pay for it? (other than the oil industry)

So you have tiny fields where it's hard to disprove any result, manned by people self selected to care about the environment and to want to save the planet...

Implicit collusion is at least somewhere between plausible and probable.