Proof of the scientific fraud called MMGW

[wvit1001]

No it wasn't sweaty.

[DaBoz]

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication “some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified.” Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of “going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence.” We're shocked.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as “peer-reveiwed” science. The Times said the assertion actually “was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise,” “authored by two green activists” and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The “research” was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested “up to 40 percent” of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.



Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961 but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.



U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find “further investigation is warranted” to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that “seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities.” Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

[DaBoz]

ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

[DaBoz]

Not to mention the numerous name changes in your agenda to get MMGW through as climate.

Now tell me about your dedication to Junk Science as a religion to push here, nit wad

[sweetwater5s9]

It's a scientific theory and a very well documented and accepted one.

So was MMGC in the 1970's and for many of the same reasons.

Scientists were wrong in the 1970's.   

Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls.

[wvit1001]

Let's start with that last one boz. The one you called Alaska gate.  You seem to have misread what was actually found. The question isn't whether the ice in Alaska is melting, it is. The point of the study was how much that melting contributes to sea level rise.  The original work overestimated the contribution the melting Alaskan glaciers were making. This was because of the way the estimates were done.

So this isn't really any condemnation of mmcc at all   Sea level rise is happening and measurable and the Alaskan glaciers are still melting at ver increasing rates.

http://www4.nau.edu/insidenau/bumps/2010/3_1_10/glacier.htm

[DaBoz]

IPCC's Jones admitted that the medieval times may have been warmer than any period in modern times.

[wvit1001]

He didn't say that the global temperatures were warmer boz. Regional temperatures in Northern Europe aren't the global temperatures.

[DaBoz]

ROFLMAO,,, always with the bullshit.  Get back to me when you get an education.

http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/index.html

[chuck_curtis]

The degree of man's impact is not well settled, and it was only very recently that warmers came up with a new theory to explain why their greenhouse theory was so asymmetrical.  They now theorize that it's going into the oceans.  And the known evidence is not holding up that theory very well.   The papers are still flowing and there are lots of questions, even if the politics are stuck in the dark ages.  The climate is a chaotic system, and the past is replete with evidence of chaotic changes.

[wvit1001]

Boz that junk science site you posted is a perfect dxample of why your such an idiot. It first starts off arguing that the earth atmosphere isn't at all line a greenhouse but the only a couple of paragraphs later it says that this greenhouse effect is necessary for the planet to be habitable   

Do you actually read and take anything more than amusement from idiotic sites like these?

[DaBoz]

Sure ,,, coming from a NUTCASE THAT WILL NOT LOOK AT FACTS so he attacks the site..   And expects to be taken seriously... REALITY ALERT ON NITWAD.

A perfect example of the posted topic.. My questions and links are too stupid for him to answer so he blows them off by the kill the messenger method.. Pathetic POS, HUH??. The actual science discussed was way over his head or his response would be far more intellectual.



http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/12/20/celebrated-physicist-calls-ipcc-summary-deeply-unscientific/