The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.

banjo · Jan 13, 2017

Cowabunga said:
People really should watch the whole of that video. It confirms what I implied and said about data manipulation a few posts ago. They've been at it again in the last few weeks, changing measured data to eliminate the lack of warming over the last 18 years to create results that they actually want.

I had not realised that they had done so consistently and so blatantly over the last 25 years though. It doesn't surprise me, but it is still shocking.

It is genuinely shocking, I feel the same, to think that all the work of good people who spent years going out to the measuring stations documenting temp records every day has been deleated and changed.
Thanks for watching the vids by the way, they are long, but the trouble is genuine climate scientists are boring data collectors and that's because they do the job correctly.

Dave645 · Jan 13, 2017

banjo said:
Yes they doctor everything, thanks for listening to the chap

Your talking of a huge scam now, this is government level stuff, this level of scam would be uncovered very quickly, if weather and satellite data is being fudged in the ways you say it seems impossible to hide from world governments, unless it's the government doing it.
Your scenario, is getting wilder and wilder, your arguments and reasoning seem to require a world wide conspiracy by governments, they are getting so far fetched, they are beyond the pale.

If you had said data is ambiguous at best I could meet you half way but these wild claims, are pushing me further away from the middle ground.
There are so meany facts that could easily be checked that you claim are false, to be believed. Data is recorded in so meany places from paper to digital records, it would be nearly imposable to corrupt it all, and your version says it is happening.....er ok, I think this is classic over egging, and wishful thinking to justify your position. Just step back and look what your asking people to believe.

Cowabunga · Jan 13, 2017

Dave645 said:
Your talking of a huge scam now, this is government level stuff, this level of scam would be uncovered very quickly, if weather and satellite data is being fudged in the ways you say it seems impossible to hide from world governments, unless it's the government doing it.
Your scenario, is getting wilder and wilder, your arguments and reasoning seem to require a world wide conspiracy by governments, they are getting so far fetched, they are beyond the pale.

If you had said data is ambiguous at best I could meet you half way but these wild claims, are pushing me further away from the middle ground.
There are so meany facts that could easily be checked that you claim are false, to be believed. Data is recorded in so meany places from paper to digital records, it would be nearly imposable to corrupt it all, and your version says it is happening.....er ok, I think this is classic over egging, and wishful thinking to justify your position. Just step back and look what your asking people to believe.

You obviously haven't seen that video of the actual recorded data and the doctored data showing the disappearance of the 1930's warm period and, more startlingly, the obliteration of the cooling until the 1970's. There was absolutely no dispute about this cooling at the time and I well remember the dire warnings of us entering another ice age that was the norm until the late 1970's. Yet the doctored data has eliminated that cooling period completely.

Now we have just had a readjustment of recent data that showed no warming since 1998 to a set that shows continued warming. They took the readings but they now say that the data isn't valid and needs to be adjusted to show a continued warming that the real data, inconveniently, shows not to exist.

Here is a summary in written form of some of what was contained in the video presentation. Look at it critically. Do not necessarily believe what either strand of this debate says. Certainly do not accept alarmist forecasts and history based on data that has been tampered with after the fact, specifically to confirm a predetermined conclusion.

Would you be happy with a commercial company constantly and inconsistently tampering with data under the guise of wholesale 'adjustment' to prove a certain commercial imperative? That they obliterate massive historical data from the records [thinking of the extremely hot 1930's and the cool and cooler 1950's to the early 1980's] in order to show a different scenario than the actual over that period?

marcusthehat · Jan 14, 2017

Cowabunga said:
the obliteration of the cooling until the 1970's. There was absolutely no dispute about this cooling at the time and I well remember the dire warnings of us entering another ice age that was the norm until the late 1970's. Yet the doctored data has eliminated that cooling period completely.

Since I was going through the Tech from 1974 to 1978, and writing essays for "A" level English, I too remember this false prediction, that and oil would definately run out in 20 to 25 years!

We are doomed, doomed!, I say.

Dave645 · Jan 14, 2017

Cowabunga said:
You obviously haven't seen that video of the actual recorded data and the doctored data showing the disappearance of the 1930's warm period and, more startlingly, the obliteration of the cooling until the 1970's. There was absolutely no dispute about this cooling at the time and I well remember the dire warnings of us entering another ice age that was the norm until the late 1970's. Yet the doctored data has eliminated that cooling period completely.

Now we have just had a readjustment of recent data that showed no warming since 1998 to a set that shows continued warming. They took the readings but they now say that the data isn't valid and needs to be adjusted to show a continued warming that the real data, inconveniently, shows not to exist.

Here is a summary in written form of some of what was contained in the video presentation. Look at it critically. Do not necessarily believe what either strand of this debate says. Certainly do not accept alarmist forecasts and history based on data that has been tampered with after the fact, specifically to confirm a predetermined conclusion.

Would you be happy with a commercial company constantly and inconsistently tampering with data under the guise of wholesale 'adjustment' to prove a certain commercial imperative? That they obliterate massive historical data from the records [thinking of the extremely hot 1930's and the cool and cooler 1950's to the early 1980's] in order to show a different scenario than the actual over that period?

One person or company tampering is one thing, and it's easily spotted and corrected, your saying it's a scam that governments have done no due dilagents just believed scientists and allowed poor data to convince them. That this flimsy evidence that could be refute with a quick visit to the weather records office...... there is a lot of wishful thinking.

Next they keep throwing around volcanic activity dwarfing man made, a simple Google show that, that is not the case volcanoes natures co2 machines, are hundreds of million of tonnes per year, man is billions of tonnes of co2 per year.

Then I take my own knowlage, my great great grand parents used to ice skate on the river Trent, near where we live, they went as far as making their own ice skates, which I have seen, when was the last time we have had tempratures that even come close to being able to do that.

Then we have the predictions made in the late 1990's and how they were so far out, it cannot be true, has anyone remodelled it to take into account the changes we have made by reducing our co2 emissions, a model made to predict what would happen if we make no changes, is always going to be wrong, after we start making changes.
It's not proof they got it wrong that globle warming is not happening, it's proof we have helped our selves a little, started to avert the changes.

There version of the facts just need me to believe that, a few scientist managed to convince governments of the world to spend multi billions of pounds with faked data. The lack of evidence to make a 100% case is not evidence it's a scam. If the people claiming it's a scam had hard evidence it was a scam, then they would have no problem proving it's a scam. The fact is there is no hard evidence either way, so we look around us see what's happening and believe the most believable theory.
That for me is, its a man assisted event. That we are effecting globle tempratures more than nature is with volcanic activity.

It was proven that once an ice blanket nearly covered the entire planet, that to recover from that the only thing that could was emissions from volcanos, because sunlight was being reflected by the snow, with no natural absorption from plants at that time, very little free water, co2 and other gasses from volcanos triggered tempratures to rise and started to un freeze the planet.
That seems to me like co2 leading to temprature rises......not the other way around as your guys want us to believe, is always the case.

Co2 is rising they all agree to that, it's about the only thing......

Cowabunga · Jan 14, 2017

marcusthehat said:
Since I was going through the Tech from 1974 to 1978, and writing essays for "A" level English, I too remember this false prediction, that and oil would definately run out in 20 to 25 years!

We are doomed, doomed!, I say.

Yes, I was made very aware of that as well.

Cowabunga · Jan 14, 2017

Dave645 said:
One person or company tampering is one thing, and it's easily spotted and corrected, your saying it's a scam that governments have done no due dilagents just believed scientists and allowed poor data to convince them. That this flimsy evidence that could be refute with a quick visit to the weather records office...... there is a lot of wishful thinking.

Next they keep throwing around volcanic activity dwarfing man made, a simple Google show that, that is not the case volcanoes natures co2 machines, are hundreds of million of tonnes per year, man is billions of tonnes of co2 per year.

Then I take my own knowlage, my great great grand parents used to ice skate on the river Trent, near where we live, they went as far as making their own ice skates, which I have seen, when was the last time we have had tempratures that even come close to being able to do that.

Then we have the predictions made in the late 1990's and how they were so far out, it cannot be true, has anyone remodelled it to take into account the changes we have made by reducing our co2 emissions, a model made to predict what would happen if we make no changes, is always going to be wrong, after we start making changes.
It's not proof they got it wrong that globle warming is not happening, it's proof we have helped our selves a little, started to avert the changes.

There version of the facts just need me to believe that, a few scientist managed to convince governments of the world to spend multi billions of pounds with faked data. The lack of evidence to make a 100% case is not evidence it's a scam. If the people claiming it's a scam had hard evidence it was a scam, then they would have no problem proving it's a scam. The fact is there is no hard evidence either way, so we look around us see what's happening and believe the most believable theory.
That for me is, its a man assisted event. That we are effecting globle tempratures more than nature is with volcanic activity.

It was proven that once an ice blanket nearly covered the entire planet, that to recover from that the only thing that could was emissions from volcanos, because sunlight was being reflected by the snow, with no natural absorption from plants at that time, very little free water, co2 and other gasses from volcanos triggered tempratures to rise and started to un freeze the planet.
That seems to me like co2 leading to temprature rises......not the other way around as your guys want us to believe, is always the case.

Co2 is rising they all agree to that, it's about the only thing......

I'm not saying anything. Look at the facts of how data collected is being changed to fit a predetermined conclusion. It is blatant and would be unacceptable in any other science or industry or in any walk of life.

banjo · Jan 14, 2017

Dave

Dave645 said:
Your talking of a huge scam now, this is government level stuff, this level of scam would be uncovered very quickly, if weather and satellite data is being fudged in the ways you say it seems impossible to hide from world governments, unless it's the government doing it.
Your scenario, is getting wilder and wilder, your arguments and reasoning seem to require a world wide conspiracy by governments, they are getting so far fetched, they are beyond the pale.

If you had said data is ambiguous at best I could meet you half way but these wild claims, are pushing me further away from the middle ground.
There are so meany facts that could easily be checked that you claim are false, to be believed. Data is recorded in so meany places from paper to digital records, it would be nearly imposable to corrupt it all, and your version says it is happening.....er ok, I think this is classic over egging, and wishful thinking to justify your position. Just step back and look what your asking people to believe.

Dave believe what you want, the evidence of all these people ( very educated climate scientists ) shows that the archive of the origional data has been changed, it's a fact. The chap in congress had the origional date and showed it against it, the chap who worked for NASA showed the same, I'm not lying.
The sat data proved they were wrong cos co2 follows the heat of the earth, so they rubbish the sat data, even though the earths temp showed it was correct.
You can call it what you want, it's happening, so don't shoot the chap that's giving you a chance to decide for yourself.
The sea ice, there is more not less costly it's getting colder.
37.000 scientists belive it's wrong and letters show they were doctoring the evidence, even George monbiot was there in the middle ( I will put the link up )
Hope you look at the evidence presented to you and make up your own mind cis that's all I'm doing. For the last 20 years the data is wrong and if anyone questioned it you were vilified or sacked.

banjo · Jan 14, 2017

Here's a clip of mr monbiot and another in the middle of it all, they admitted to falsifying the trend in e mails to each other, need I say more!

Old McDonald · Jan 14, 2017

jendan said:
I can remember Jan/Feb/Mar 1979 well.We got 3 very deep dollops of snow in each month,probably the most depth i have experienced.Feet,rather than inches.One of the few times the milk tanker was unable to get to our farm.But Dec81/Jan82 was definitely colder.-20C at night for several weeks,most unusual for us.Many villages water supply froze,the frost getting down 2 to 3 feet.That was the coldest i have lived through.Allthough 63 was cold,i cant remember it,i was only 4 at the time.The cold spell ended suddenly later in January with very mild weather,which resulted in many burst water pipes.

Quick coffee break response. West Woodburn also had 1979 temperatures below -20C. I was 18 through the 1962/3 winter. I do not remember it being particularly cold, it was the depth of snow that was the problem. The thaw was 7th March (memory) and it caused Morpeth's worst flooding up to that time. I was working in the Town Clerk's department at the time and ended up being the only staff member on duty overnight in the Town Hall - being used as a rest centre. At 18 it was daunting especially when a Major from the T.A. asked me for instructions. I told him I thought he would know better than me (I knew him) and he took his own decisions. The Salvation Army were brilliant.

Old McDonald · Jan 14, 2017

jendan said:
What i would like to know is,which scientists are right,and which ones are wrong.They cant all be both at the same time.The guy in the last video seemed to be no mug,and had nothing to do with any energy company,nor was relying on any funding either way. The only thing i would question about the last video is the satelite images of Arctic sea ice.I think it shows it is getting less(although nothing like as much as the warmists say) Surely they cant "doctor" this,or can they?

What if I take banjo's attitude and say that the video links he has given are the false ones?

I think you already know that all films and photographs are very easily "doctored".

Cowabunga · Jan 14, 2017

Old McDonald said:
What if I take banjo's attitude and say that the video links he has given are the false ones?

I think you already know that all films and photographs are very easily "doctored".

There's no dispute whatsoever about the data as originally measured and it is disingenuous, but rather typical of a section of alarmists, to suggest otherwise. There is no doubt whatsoever that the original figures have been substantially 'adjusted' to give the current graphs and projections, but more seriously to alter the historical perspective.

Old McDonald · Jan 14, 2017

Old McDonald said:
Do not answer this by telling me to watch yet another of your hour long videos. I doubt whether many posters on here have time to watch them all. I have watched some, but they do not answer the questions you have been asked, which in general are phrase around "give us some numbers" to back up your claim that things are "fact". If you want to persuade us then you have to do some work yourself and not just pump out "watch the video".

@banjo, so what did you do? Put up another video link.Admittedly not an hour long, but still a video link. No effort to give us any data you have found for yourself.

banjo said:
I know you don't like people not agreeing with you on this subject, cos you have made your mind up already.

Does anybody (especially you) like others disagreeing with them? Yes, I have made my mind up, but am willing to have it changed - I BELIEVE THE PLANET EARTH IS WARMING AT AND NEAR GROUND LEVEL. I BELIEVE IT IS NOT PROVEN THAT WE ARE RESPONSIBLE.

banjo said:
Ok find the origional temp data before 1987 ( if it's been doctored I will tell straight away)

No. I said find me the papers you say have been "deleted", not ask me to trawl through a lot of information to find decades of temperature records. You are the one claiming they have been tampered with. You go to the trouble of finding even newspaper articles from the 1920s and 1930s. You find the daily weather reports from around the world. You find the articles telling us about 120ºF plus temperatures.

If you are in a position to "tell straight away" that any temperature record from before 1987 has been altered, it means you already have the information, so why hide it from those of us who like to see these records?

I am sure most posters on here would like you to begin answering some of the many questions you have been asked since you began this thread. You actually began it, thereby seeking debate, but you have consistently refused to enter into that debate, by consistently refusing to answer any questions put to you - other than your compulsory videos of course.

You obviously do care whether or not people agree with you, and you want to persuade everyone that global warming is an almost impossible to orchestrate scam. If you did not care you would not have begun the thread. Beginning it with an extremely discredited 10 years old video was not a good move on your part.

Old McDonald · Jan 14, 2017

Cowabunga said:
There's no dispute whatsoever about the data as originally measured and it is disingenuous, but rather typical of a section of alarmists, to suggest otherwise. There is no doubt whatsoever that the original figures have been substantially 'adjusted' to give the current graphs and projections, but more seriously to alter the historical perspective.

I am not an alarmist. See my post immediately following yours.

The challenge to you is now the same as to banjo. You say that "there is no doubt whatsoever" that, presumably, many original figures have been altered. I say there is a very big doubt. To know they have been altered you must have the original figures and the altered ones. So, choose any data set you want, give the original figures (in numbers not graphs or charts) and the "adjusted" figures for that same data set. We can then all compare the two and see who altered them.

Cowabunga · Jan 14, 2017

Old McDonald said:
I am not an alarmist. See my post immediately following yours.

The challenge to you is now the same as to banjo. You say that "there is no doubt whatsoever" that, presumably, many original figures have been altered. I say there is a very big doubt. To know they have been altered you must have the original figures and the altered ones. So, choose any data set you want, give the original figures (in numbers not graphs or charts) and the "adjusted" figures for that same data set. We can then all compare the two and see who altered them.

The original figures are not in doubt and you are at the least disingenuous and at worse dishonest to question that fact. The original figures are as measured. They have been modified in recent years, in many cases substantially, to fit what certain people want the result to be. Only in the last few weeks we have seen another set of measured data being modified to make the last 18 year's lack of warming disappear so that the warming curves keep sweeping upwards.

Wastexprt · Jan 14, 2017

Cowabunga said:
The original figures are not in doubt and you are at the least disingenuous and at worse dishonest to question that fact. The original figures are as measured. They have been modified in recent years, in many cases substantially, to fit what certain people want the result to be. Only in the last few weeks we have seen another set of measured data being modified to make the last 18 year's lack of warming disappear so that the warming curves keep sweeping upwards.

Could it not be the case that as a better understanding of how the climate works enables a different perspective to be taken? As more complex modelling techniques become available this allows a better understanding? I agree that historic data does seem to be made to fit the agenda, but may be they are right? I'm not sure about the anthropomorphic effect myself, but can understand the basic premise that a relatively sudden release, in geological terms, of millions of years worth of stored CO2 released in the blink of an eye, is bound to have some cause and effect. Whether it is the cause, or the effect, will we ever totally know?

I suppose it's a bit like 'peak oil', we were once told that there was only 20 - 30 years worth of oil left, yet as technology and innovation matures the potential for extracting more oil and the ability to more accurately assess and discover new oil fields allow the 'peak oil' date to be stretched further in to the future?

Cowabunga · Jan 14, 2017

360farmsupport said:
Could it not be the case that as a better understanding of how the climate works enables a different perspective to be taken? As more complex modelling techniques become available this allows a better understanding? I agree that historic data does seem to be made to fit the agenda, but may be they are right? I'm not sure about the anthropomorphic effect myself, but can understand the basic premise that a relatively sudden release, in geological terms, of millions of years worth of stored CO2 released in the blink of an eye, is bound to have some cause and effect. Whether it is the cause, or the effect, will we ever totally know?

I suppose it's a bit like 'peak oil', we were once told that there was only 20 - 30 years worth of oil left, yet as technology and innovation matures the potential for extracting more oil and the ability to more accurately assess and discover new oil fields allow the 'peak oil' date to be stretched further in to the future?

They have obliterated the 1930's warm decade and 30 years of fairly consistent cooling that was undisputed over that period and later, that was from the 1940's to the end of the 1970's. Undisputed until fairly recently when they used 'adjusted' figures to make it all disappear.
There is no rational or reasonable explanation as to why they have done this, and considering the adjusted data and the graphs made based upon the adjusted data actually is not what actually happened in those years. It is a blatant rewriting of weather history. There is no reasonable explanation for this that doesn't reflect and indicate dishonesty, and that the original measurements are inconvenient to certain interests and therefore to be 'adjusted' to suit their ends. Real science does not do this, and certainly not on this scale.

bovrill · Jan 14, 2017

Old McDonald said:
I BELIEVE THE PLANET EARTH IS WARMING AT AND NEAR GROUND LEVEL. I BELIEVE IT IS NOT PROVEN THAT WE ARE RESPONSIBLE.

I hope I've edited out the bit correctly.
I know from previous FWi discussions on the subject that we had broad agreement on things, with a slightly different conclusion on the human input (have you mellowed a bit on that? I suspect we've both come towards the centre ground a bit over the years!)
I heartily agree with your statement above, and I would also add that I believe that the temperature rise figures have been manipulated, or at least presented in a dishonest manner, to exaggerate what's been happening, and what will happen. And I can't see that CO2 is the culprit. It's a simple thing with provable, measurable, big changes over recent years which can be made out to be the bogeyman, and base all the scare tactics around.

I had actually bowed out of this thread. With most arguments I am frustrated by the dishonesty of others in the face of my side's straightforward facts

, but I feel here that others are trying to support my beliefs with complete porkies!
Being a bit pedantic about statistics, and also their representation, and their interpretation, I fear I would resort to ad hominim attacks on one or two posters.

Cowabunga · Jan 14, 2017

360farmsupport said:
I suppose it's a bit like 'peak oil', we were once told that there was only 20 - 30 years worth of oil left, yet as technology and innovation matures the potential for extracting more oil and the ability to more accurately assess and discover new oil fields allow the 'peak oil' date to be stretched further in to the future?

This bit of your post is replied to separately because it illustrates not what you think but that again there are alarmists and people who would have motives for manipulating people's opinions that will jump on any alarmist predictions going. It shows that any old rubbish can be said convincingly and a large percentage of the population will believe it. So called 'environmentalists' and the religious are particularly susceptible to suggestion and manipulation it seems to me, but nobody is immune.

Old McDonald · Jan 14, 2017

Cowabunga said:
The original figures are not in doubt and you are at the least disingenuous and at worse dishonest to question that fact. The original figures are as measured. They have been modified in recent years, in many cases substantially, to fit what certain people want the result to be. Only in the last few weeks we have seen another set of measured data being modified to make the last 18 year's lack of warming disappear so that the warming curves keep sweeping upwards.

I have never suggested that the original figures are in doubt, so why your first sentence?

I have questioned the statements by you and banjo that these figures have been altered, and asked you to provide both sets. Neither of you have done so.

Temperatures have continued to rise over the last 18 years. Published figures in each year have shown that the present temperature is marginally higher. As already pointed out to you in an early post. Also the fact that banjo's Ted Cruze link has him saying that temperatures have not increased by what he decided were a "significant" amount - his decision on what is significant.

The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page