lead climate alarmist caught faking data

[dyna mo]

a group of scientists headed by geologist Shaun Marcott launched the latest salvo in the global warming war. They announced that they had reconstructed the last 11,000 years of Earth climate history, based on various proxies, and had found that in the 20th century there was an unprecedented uptick in temperature. The Marcott paper was hailed by liberal media outlets; to cite just a few examples:

* ?We?re screwed: 11,000 years? worth of haclimate data prove it.? The Atlantic, March 10.


But when real scientists?that is, those who apply a skeptical, scientific approach rather than a religious attitude of fervor?studied the Marcott paper, it quickly fell apart.

It turned out that Marcott and his colleagues had created the 20th century warming spike?which was, in reality, the sole purpose of their exercise?by changing the dates on some of the samples they used as proxies.

Hockey Stick Redux | Power Line

Validity of Marcott et al. PART II | Watts Up With That?

[ITraffic]

interesting, but do you have better sources? those are garbage.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by ITraffic

interesting, but do you have better sources? those are garbage.

Of course not

[L-Pink]

Is Al Gore still running up $30,000-a-year in utility bills? Just curious.


.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by ITraffic

interesting, but do you have better sources? those are garbage.

there is no way on earth you read both those articles in less than 2 minutes. the 2nd one is a 3 piece investigation that goes in depth into the deceit. the link I provided was simple one of those.

hardly garbage, you didn't read them.


next.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Of course not

dollars to donuts you didn't even click the links.

gofuckyourself.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

dollars to donuts you didn't even click the links.

gofuckyourself.

You are right i hovered them...saw the domain names and decided it is not worth my time.

Post links from university sites with real scientists.

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

You are right i hovered them...saw the domain names and decided it is not worth my time.

Post links from university sites with real scientists.

Universities? You should ask yourself this, how else would they get grants and funding if they don't toe the line on the "global warming"?

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Dvae

Universities? You should ask yourself this, how else would they get grants and funding if they don't toe the line on the "global warming"?

You think everyone is on the take? All scientists from leading research schools are on the dole?

[ITraffic]

i am familiar with the sites. they are trash. post legitimate papers, from legitimate scientists from legitimate schools and i will take a look.

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

You think everyone is on the take? All scientists from leading research schools are on the dole?

You're right how could I be so stupid!

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by ITraffic

i am familiar with the sites. they are trash. post legitimate papers, from legitimate scientists from legitimate schools and i will take a look.

Heres one -Dr. Patrick Moore Testimony in US Senate Subcommittee

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

You are right i hovered them...saw the domain names and decided it is not worth my time.

Post links from university sites with real scientists.

i'll do even better, here's the study's lead author/scientist admitted they fudged the data

realclimate.org, that's good enough for you, right.

"Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions." - See more at: RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

[ITraffic]

Originally Posted by Dvae

Heres one -Dr. Patrick Moore Testimony in US Senate Subcommittee

post legitimate papers, from legitimate scientists from legitimate schools.

youtube videos don't count except in wehateporn's world.

[ITraffic]

plus i am talking about posting legitimate papers, from legitimate scientists from legitimate schools refuting the paper in the original post.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by ITraffic

plus i am talking about posting legitimate papers, from legitimate scientists from legitimate schools refuting the paper in the original post.

Here is a paper.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/gecg/images/u...010%29_GEC.pdf

I wonder what youtube video they can finnd to refute this.

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by ITraffic

post legitimate papers, from legitimate scientists from legitimate schools.

youtube videos don't count except in wehateporn's world.

Maybe you don't understand who Dr. Patrick Moore is. In case you are too lazy to look it up, he is the co-founder of Greenpeace. How much more legitimate do you need?

And who decides the term "legitimate" anyways?
Every scientist has a motivation for doing and saying what they do and say. The difference between you and me is I'm willing to admit that, you are not. The "global warming" alarmists in your view are beyond reproach. And their only motivation is a better future never money.

[Sly]

I'm confused as to which alarming view I should have, as it changes every 2 years.

How can that not throw a red flag?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by ITraffic

plus i am talking about posting legitimate papers, from legitimate scientists from legitimate schools refuting the paper in the original post.

again::::::::::

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i'll do even better, here's the study's lead author/scientist admitted they fudged the data

realclimate.org, that's good enough for you, right.

"Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions." - See more at: RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

there is no way on earth you read both those articles in less than 2 minutes. the 2nd one is a 3 piece investigation that goes in depth into the deceit. the link I provided was simple one of those.

hardly garbage, you didn't read them.


next.

To know if a site is garbage, all you have to do is look at the front page and read some of the headline titles. Powerline is obviously a conservative sludge tank.

[JJ Gold]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

You think everyone is on the take? All scientists from leading research schools are on the dole?

Yes. They are worthless bitches who couldn't get a job with Dow or Dupont and now they have to fleece the government to make their Volvo payments.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by bronco67

To know if a site is garbage, all you have to do is look at the front page and read some of the headline titles. Powerline is obviously a conservative sludge tank.

wrong.

I've already posted the lead researcher's concession in this thread 2 times (once right before your post) that they had to fudge the data. The articles I cited in the OP are perfectly in accordance with that concession.


So to know if an article is not garbage, you must actually read the article and see how accurately it reflects the truth. Here, both are 100% spot on. regardless of the WWW

handing waving off accurate portrayal of this because, you know, the front page of that link and all?

[dig420]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i'll do even better, here's the study's lead author/scientist admitted they fudged the data

realclimate.org, that's good enough for you, right.

"Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions." - See more at: RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al. and here's the site you're leaning on saying they think the results of the paper are entirely legit, and even the quote you posted just says that the data you're talking about wasn't part of the dataset they used to draw their conclusions.

This is hardly comparable to bought and paid for scientists outright lying in order to serve their conservative corporate masters is it? And why do you, as an American citizen, somehow think you're 'winning' by allowing corporate interests to contaminate the environment in which you live and breathe? You live here too.